Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I, 2. 10. 5| relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new medical technologies.
2 II, 5. 4. 6| track health outcomes and cost-effectiveness, taking into account Member
3 II, 5. 5. 3| and colleagues evaluated cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatment
4 II, 5. 5. 3| Issakidis C, Lapsley H (2003): Cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatment
5 II, 5. 5. 3| adjusted life years (DALYs): in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Policy
6 II, 5. 7. 5| The Netherlands) and a cost-effectiveness analysis in support of this
7 II, 5. 7. 7| Gilst WH, et al (2006): Cost-effectiveness of screening for albuminuria
8 II, 5. 7. 7| proteinuria in US adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 2003;290(
9 II, 5. 8. 4| care towards prevention and cost-effectiveness of intervention (Mannino
10 II, 5. 14. 6| This will optimize the cost-effectiveness ratio of the health programmes
11 II, 7. 4 | of interventions and the cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions
12 III, 10. 2. 1| shows the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening
13 III, 10. 2. 1| of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions delivered
14 IV, 11. 1. 5| some notion of value or cost-effectiveness relative to alternative
15 IV, 11. 2. 2| evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of public health interventions.
16 IV, 11. 3. 2| Slovakia. In Germany and France cost-effectiveness analysis is used to inform
17 IV, 11. 4 | methods such as~· Modelling cost-effectiveness ratios using quality-adjusted
18 IV, 11. 6. 4| to assess evidence of the cost-effectiveness of health interventions,
19 IV, 11. 6. 4| information regarding the cost-effectiveness of interventions is either
20 IV, 12. 2 | shows the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening
21 IV, 13. 3 | support decisions and evaluate cost-effectiveness of programmes represents
22 IV, 13. 3 | evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of public health intervention.
