Skip to main content

Table 6 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and distribution of the joint cost-effect pairs in the cost-effectiveness planes of the internet group resulting from the main analyses and the sensitivity analyses

From: Economic evaluation of a weight control program with e-mail and telephone counseling among overweight employees: a randomized controlled trial

 Analysis Sample size per group ΔC (95% CI) ΔE (95% CI)   Distribution in CE plane (%)
  Control Internet   Weight loss (kg) ICER NE b SE c SW d NW e
Main 448 450 14 (−790; 867) 0.9 (−0.1; 1.9) 16 50 48 1 1
Complete cases 134 129 -82 (-838 to 633) 1.3* (0.3; 2.4) −62 41 58 0 0
Company perspective 448 450 −149 (−858; 618) 0.9 (−0.1; 1.9) −171 33 65 2 1
     QALY ICUR     
Main 448 450 14 (−774; 887) 0.01 (−0.01; 0.04) 1337 35 47 5 14
Complete cases 120 125 −307 (−1179; 315) 0.02 (−0.02; 0.06) −27,908 17 71 8 5
Company perspective 448 450 −149 (−858; 618) 0.01 (−0.01; 0.04) −14,181 23 58 8 11
UK tariff 448 450 14 (−774; 887) 0.02 (−0.02;0.06) 702 41 47 4 9
  1. a In the analysis ΔC= mean difference in total costs, ΔE= mean difference in outcome, ICER (ICUR) =incremental cost-effectiveness (utility) ratio calculated as ΔC/ΔE. In the main analysis missing data were multiply imputed. The complete cases analysis was restricted to participants with complete cost and effect data. b Northeast quadrant of the CE-plane: the intervention is more effective and more costly than self-help brochures. Southeast quadrant of the CE-plane: the intervention is more effective and less costly than self-help brochures. d Southwest quadrant of the CE-plane: the intervention is less effective and less costly than self-help brochures. e Northwest quadrant of the CE-plane: the intervention is less effective and more costly than self-help brochures. *p=0.01.