Suggestions(1)
Exact(3)
An individual cost/benefit relation ≤ 100 €/% was found in 38% versus 30% of the respective cohort patients (Fisher p = 0.278); accordingly the introduction of an interdisciplinary clinical pathway on TKA did not significantly change the fraction of individually cost effective treatment courses from the health care providers' perspective in terms of this primary cost effectiveness parameter.
In a series of subgroup analyses we repeated all analyses by parity subgroup for the primary cost effectiveness outcome namely, incremental cost per adverse perinatal outcome avoided.
Accordingly, in terms of the primary endpoint of this evaluation, the sub cohorts with and without attendance to the pathway-associated briefing showed 36% versus 23% individually cost effective patient courses (individual MCER ≤ 100 €/%); however; the two sub cohorts after pathway implementation did not signficantly differ in this primary cost effectiveness endpoint (Fisher p = 0.166).
Similar(57)
The primary cost-effectiveness end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.
A primary cost-effectiveness analysis, using PRP as the comparator.
The primary cost-effectiveness outcome will be the percentage of reduction in overweight and obese children.
The primary cost-effectiveness results reported in Sharp et al's abstract are for the three core strategies.
Our primary cost-effectiveness ratio will be estimated using empirical data only and therefore using a 3-year time horizon, which is equal to the trial duration.
Our primary cost-effectiveness ratio will be estimated using empirical data only and therefore a 3-year time horizon will be used, which is equal to the trial duration.
The primary outcome of cost effectiveness was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
There is compelling evidence for statin therapy for secondary prevention but for primary prevention, cost-effectiveness and effect on quality of life are less clear [ 24- 26].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com