Vertaling van "cost-effectiveness of different " (Nederlands → Frans) :

hospital: what have we learned?J Hosp Infect 2001; 47(1):9-18 44 Kunori T, Cookson B, Roberts JA et al. Cost-effectiveness of different MRSA screening methods.
hospital: what have we learned?J Hosp Infect 2001; 47(1):9-18 43 Kunori T, Cookson B, Roberts JA et al. Cost-effectiveness of different MRSA screening methods.

Six cost-benefit studies have concluded that these control policies are cost effective in situations where carriage rates on admission vary between 0.5 to 20 %, efficacy of control measures between 14 and 80 % and rate of infection among colonised patients is between 20 and 60 % 13, 14, 15, 16 .
Six études de coût-bénéfice ont conclu que ces politiques de contrôle sont rentables dans des situations où le taux de portage à l’admission varie entre 0,5 et 20 %, l’efficacité des mesures de contrôle entre 14 et 80 % et le taux d'infection chez les patients colonisés entre 20 et 60% 13, 14, 15, 16 .

36. Woolacott NF, Jones L, Forbes CA, Mather LC, Sowden AJ, Song FJ et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
36. Woolacott NF, Jones L, Forbes CA, Mather LC, Sowden AJ, Song FJ et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

In that case, the cost and effectiveness of this approach must regularly be re-assessed.
Dans ce cas, le coût et l'efficacité de cette approche doivent régulièrement être réévalués.

The simplest, fastest and most cost-effective technique uses a nasal swab from the two anterior nostrils 43,44 but nasal swabs, even when performed properly only detect 78 to 85% of the carriers 45,46 .
La technique la plus simple, la plus rapide et la plus rentable est de recourir à un écouvillon nasal des deux narines antérieures 42,43 mais les écouvillons nasaux, même lorsqu'ils sont effectués correctement, ne détectent que 78 à 85% des porteurs 44,45 .

The cost-effectiveness of this approach is under investigation.
La rentabilité de cette approche est à l'étude.

Volgens de NICE normen waren de resultaten relatief ongunstig en " de Commissie besloot dat de meest plausibele ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio - incrementele kosteneffectiviteitsratio) voor bevacizumab in combinatie met paclitaxel ten opzichte van wekelijkse paclitaxel tussen £110,000 en £259,000 per gewonnen QALY schommelde" .
Conformément aux standards du NICE, les résultats ont été relativement défavorables et " le Comité a conclu que l'ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio – ratio cout efficacité incrémental) le plus plausible du bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus du paclitaxel toutes les semaines se situait entre £110,000 et £259,000 par QALY gagné”.

Costs and consequences of side-effects of bupropion or NRT were not taken into account
Costs and consequences of side-effects of Buproprion or NRT were not taken into account

Odds ratio of NRT versus control: 1.67 Odds ratio of bupropion versus control: 2.1 Odds ratio of NRT+bupropion versus control: 2.65 From these Odds Ratios and information on the control 12-month quit rate in the comparator intervention (0.04 for brief advice and 0.10 for counselling), the 12-month quit rate of treatment is calculated: treated quit rate for brief advice+NRT: 0.0650 treated quit rate for brief advice+bupropion: 0.0805 treated quit rate for brief advice+bupropion+NRT: 0.0994 treated quit rate for counselling+NRT: 0.1565 treated quit rate for counselling+bupropion: 0.1892 treated quit rate for counselling+bupropion+NRT: 0.2275 spontaneous cessation rate: 0.01. lifetime relapse rate: 40% (range 30-50%). number of LYG per quitter: 2 (range 1-3). number of QALYs gained per quitter: 2.7 (range 1.35-4.05) not reported The table gives an overview of the assumptions with respect to costs and effects (quit rates) in the average scenario.
Odds ratio of NRT versus control: 1.67 Odds ratio of Buproprion versus control: 2.1 Odds ratio of NRT+Buproprion versus control: 2.65 From these Odds Ratios and information on the control 12-month quit rate in the comparator intervention (0.04 for brief advice and 0.10 for counselling), the 12-month quit rate of treatment is calculated: treated quit rate for brief advice+NRT: 0.0650 treated quit rate for brief advice+Buproprion: 0.0805 treated quit rate for brief advice+Buproprion+NRT: 0.0994 treated quit rate for counselling+NRT: 0.1565 treated quit rate for counselling+Buproprion: 0.1892 treated quit rate for counselling+Buproprion+NRT: 0.2275 spontaneous cessation rate: 0.01. lifetime relapse rate: 40% (range 30-50%). number of LYG per quitter: 2 (range 1-3). number of QALYs gained per quitter: 2.7 (range 1.35-4.05) not reported The table gives an overview of the assumptions with respect to costs and effects (quit rates) in the average scenario.

patients remain on one type of treatment throughout their smoking cessation therapy costs and consequences of side-effects of bupropion or NRT were not taken into account
patients remain on one type of treatment throughout their smoking cessation therapy costs and consequences of side-effects of Buproprion or NRT were not taken into account