2 IACS-10759 order cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for the multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in comparison with usual care. Top left: cost-effectiveness plane differences in percentage of fallers. Top right: cost-effectiveness plane for differences in percentage of recurrent fallers. Bottom left: cost-effectiveness plane for

differences in utility (QALY) after 1 year. Bottom right: acceptability curves presenting the probability of the intervention being cost-effective as compared with usual care at various ceiling ratios of costs, presented for fallers (solid line) and QALYs (dashed line). For a detailed explanation of the Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves (CEAC), we would like to refer readers to [40]). The panels in the cost-effectiveness planes display the percentages of estimated ratios selleck chemical per quadrant of the plane. North East quadrant intervention is more effective and more expensive, South East quadrant intervention is more effective and less expensive, South West quadrant intervention is less effective and less expensive, North West quadrant intervention is less effective and more expensive

To test the impact of imputation, the analyses were repeated with the 73 and 74 participants click here in the intervention

and usual care groups, respectively, who had complete data. NF-��B inhibitor The total costs in the intervention group were Euro 220 lower than in the usual care group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (bootstrapped 95% CI: −2,754 to 2,224). Since the percentage of fallers and recurrent fallers did not differ between the groups, the cost-effectiveness ratios clustered around the origin. ICERs were 116 for fallers, −120 for recurrent fallers and 23,044 for QALYs (data not shown). Discussion This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in persons with a high risk of recurrent falling. The intervention did not reduce the fall risk as compared with usual care during 1 year of follow-up. The average costs made from a societal perspective in persons with a high risk of recurrent falling who received the multifactorial intervention was Euro 7,740 in 1 year, which was Euro 902 higher than in the control group that received usual care. Explanations for a lack of differences in fall risk between the two groups have been described in detail elsewhere. In short, one explanation may be a lack of contrast and second, the intervention may not be adequate in the high risk group that we selected [25].