PubMed · 10205766
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Lange. 1999. ["Routine laboratory studies"].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10205766/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We compared cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of hepatitis A prevention with immune serum globulin (ISG) vs inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (iHAV) in the Israel Defence Forces. Personnel were grouped according to conditions and duration of service and analyses were performed based on maximum and minimum hepatitis A projected incidences for each group. For standing army soldiers in field units, iHAV is economically superior compared with ISG. For the five other groups studied, the reverse is true. Expected increases in production costs of ISG and expected decreases in costs of iHAV are likely to make iHAV more economical in the future.
A number of aspects must be kept in mind when interpreting cost-effectiveness ratios; it is important to realise, for example, that a cost-effectiveness ratio is a relative and not an absolute measure of efficiency. A cost-effectiveness ratio always involves a comparison of two interventions; therefore, the choice of the competing alternative has great impact on the reported, 'incremental', cost-effectiveness ratio and requires careful study. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness ratio is meant to support a choice or decision. A check must be done to see whether the study context and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio are appropriate for the choice or decision under consideration.