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.
The curve indicates the probability for the addition of family psychoeducation to be cost-effective for a range of potential maximum amounts (ceiling ratio) that a decision-maker is willing to pay for one more relapse-free day.
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.
These data were used to explore the probability that each treatment is the optimal choice, subject to a range of possible maximum values (ceiling ratio) that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for a 1%% increase in the proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful ADOS-G improvement.
