Standardized cost prices were used where available, or else real costs or tariffs were used to estimate the costs. Medication costs were calculated using Mdivi1 solubility dmso prices based on the Defined Daily Dose which is defined by the Health Care Insurance

Board as the buy S63845 assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults [33, 34]. Prices of paid domestic help were based on tariffs for unpaid work. With respect to costs of hospital admissions, the cost price of a non-teaching hospital was used because hip fracture surgery does not require the expertise of a teaching hospital, and the Maastricht University Medical Centre has both the function of a non-teaching and teaching hospital. Costs of surgery were not included in the cost calculation because previous research by Haentjens et al. [35] showed that the costs of the different types of surgery are comparable. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves To evaluate cost-effectiveness,

incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. ICERs were calculated by dividing the difference in the mean costs (between two treatments or interventions) by the differences in the mean outcomes. In this study, ICERs were calculated for weight change and for QALYs. The ICERs were interpreted as the incremental cost per unit of additional outcome [29, 36]. These ICERs were plotted learn more in a cost-effectiveness plane (CEP), in which the x-axis showed the difference in effect between the interventions and the y-axis the the differences in costs between the interventions [29, 36, 37]. In the

CEP, four quadrants were shown; ICERs located in the North East (NE) indicated that the intervention was more effective and more costly as compared with usual care. ICERs in the South East (SE), the dominant quadrant, indicated that the intervention is more effective and less costly. ICERs in the South West (SW) indicated that the intervention was less effective and less costly, and ICERs located in the North West (NW) indicated that the nutritional intervention was less effective but more costly. Based on the CEPs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were plotted [29, 36–38]. In the CEAC, the probability that the nutritional intervention is more cost-effective as compared with the usual care (y-axis) was presented for several ceiling ratios (x-axis), which were defined as the amount of money the society is willing to pay to gain one unit of effect [29, 36–38]. Within The Netherlands, the value the society is willing to pay to gain one QALY ranges from 20,000 to 80,000 Euro, depending on the severity of the disease [39]. Sensitivity analyses Sensitivity analyses were performed for age categories (55–74 vs.