Hayashi et al |
a) CT only (If negative b) PET +CT ( If negative c) PET + CT (If PET |
Potentially |
Cost utility |
Quality adjusted Life Year (QALY) |
Decision |
a) 4.79 LYs/ 4.35 QALYs b) 5.33 LYs/ 4.93 QALYs c) 5.68 LYs/ 5.33 QALYS |
n/a |
c) vs a) c) vs b) |
Nguyen et al |
a) CT (If positive then b) CT + PET (Biopsy or |
Potentially |
Cost |
LY gained |
Decision |
b) vs a) 0.27 |
b) vs a) |
b) vs a) |
Gambhir 1996, |
a) CT - if positive then b) CT and PET - if c) CT and PET - |
Potentially |
Cost- |
LY gained |
Decision |
b) vs a) +3 days |
b) vs a) - |
b) Dominate a) |
33
More intriguing information
1. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH2. Determinants of Household Health Expenditure: Case of Urban Orissa
3. Gerontocracy in Motion? – European Cross-Country Evidence on the Labor Market Consequences of Population Ageing
4. APPLYING BIOSOLIDS: ISSUES FOR VIRGINIA AGRICULTURE
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. DEMAND FOR MEAT AND FISH PRODUCTS IN KOREA
8. Flatliners: Ideology and Rational Learning in the Diffusion of the Flat Tax
9. The name is absent
10. Forecasting Financial Crises and Contagion in Asia using Dynamic Factor Analysis