This threshold represents the maximum amount that the decision-maker is willing to pay for health effects (maximum acceptable ceiling ratio).
Since the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio will generally not be stated explicitly, a sensitivity analysis should be undertaken with the probability determined for a range of λ s.
The CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.7% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio.
This probability can be identified from the incremental cost-effectiveness plane with reference to the decision-maker's defined maximum acceptable ceiling ratio.
However, the CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.67% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio.
As stated above, the CEAC indicates the probability that the intervention is cost-effective compared with the alternative, given the data, for a range of values of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio.
The probability of annual I-FOBT and colonoscopy every 10 years being cost-effective converged to 75 and 25%%, respective, if the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio increased to $50,000 per QALY gained.
Thus, the interpretation of the AFFIRM study is that, given a maximum acceptable ceiling ratio of $50,000 per life year gained, the probability that rate-control is cost-effective compared to rhythm-control is 0.9994.
Given a maximum acceptable ceiling ratio of $7000 per QALY gained, the probability that annual I-FOBT is cost-effective compared with other screening strategies exceeded 70%% but the probability that colonoscopy every 10 years is cost-effective was about 20%%.
(5) Acceptability analysis considering geogrid solutions based on cost-effectiveness, conventional (maximum acceptable rate of fatalities) and utility-based (maximum acceptable investment in mitigation to prevent fatalities) criteria.
