scholarly journals ANALISIS EFEKTIVITAS BIAYA PADA PASIEN ANAK DEMAM TIFOID DI RUMAH SAKIT BHAYANGKARA MANADO

PHARMACON ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Agatha Agnes ◽  
Gayatri Citraningtyas ◽  
Sri Sudewi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Typhoid Fever ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Record Data

ABSTRACT Typhoid fever is an endemic disease which it incidence rate is still high in Indonesian. Administering antibiotic therapy can do treatment of typhoid fever. This study was conducted since there are several pediatric patients diagnosed with typhoid fever but have different antibiotic therapies, namely cefotaxime and ceftriaxone therapy, so it is necessary to do calculations to determine the comparison and determine which treatment is more efficient in cost and effectiveness. The method used in this study is CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) with the design of retrieving medical record data of children with typhoid fever in Bhayangkara Manado Hospital retrospectively from January to December 2018. The samples  obtained were 28 pediatric patients, cinsisting of 12 patients using cefotaxime therapy and 16 patients using ceftriaxone therapy. The result of ACER (An Avarage Cost Effective Ratio) obtained by ceftriaxone were Rp. 526.609,-/day and cefotaxime Rp. 484.789,-/day. In this study, if patients under cefotaxime therapy want to swich treatment to ceftriaxone therapy, ICER calculation (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) is carried out the result are Rp.340.528,-. Keyword: Typhoid fever, Antibiotics, CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) ABSTRAK Demam tifoid merupakan penyakit endemik yang angka kejadiannya masih tinggi di Indonesia. Pengobatan demam tifoid dapat diobati dengan cara pemberian terapi antibiotik. Penelitian ini dilakukan karena ada beberapa pasien anak yang di diagnosa demam tifoid tetapi memiliki terapi antibiotik yang berbeda, yaitu terapi sefotaksim dan seftriakson  sehingga perlu dilakukan perhitungan untuk mengetahui perbandingan dan menentukan pemilihan pengobatan mana yang lebih efisien dalam biaya maupun efektivitas. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) dengan rancangan pengambilan data rekam medik pasien anak demam tifoid di RS. Bhayangkara Manado secara retrospektif pada periode Januari – Desember 2018. Sampel yang didapat sebanyak 28 pasien anak, yang terdiri dari 12 pasien pengguna terapi sefotaksim dan 16 pasien pengguna terapi seftriakson. Hasil ACER (An Avarage Cost Effective Ratio) yang diperoleh sefotaksim Rp.526.609,-/hari dan seftriakson Rp.484.789,-/hari. Pada penelitian ini jika pasien terapi sefotaksim ingin berpindah pengobatan ke terapi seftriakson maka dilakukan perhitungan ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) dan didapat hasil Rp.340.582,-, sehingga jika ingin berpindah pengobatan maka perlu penambahan biaya sesuai nilaI ICER.Kata Kunci : Demam Tifoid, Antibiotik, CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis).

scholarly journals ANALISIS EFEKTIVITAS BIAYA (COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS) PENGOBATAN INFEKSI SALURAN KEMIH MENGGUNAKAN ANTIBIOTIK SEFTRIAKSON DAN SEFOTAKSIM DI RS PARU ARIO WIRAWAN SALATIGA

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26
Author(s):  
Kusumaning Wardhani ◽  
Ening Listyanti ◽  
Niken Dyahariesti ◽  
Richa Yuswantina
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Infeksi Saluran Kemih (ISK) adalah keadaan dimana kuman bertumbuh dan berkembangbiak di dalam traktus urinarius dengan jumlah yang bermakna. ISK diobati dengan antibiotik yang menjadi salah satu kategori biaya yang signifikan dalam anggaran farmasi di rumah sakit. Antibiotik golongan Sefalosporin digunakan sebagai drug of choise dan dicari lebih cost-effective. Untuk menentukan terapi yang lebih cost-effective antara penggunaan Setriakson dan Sefotaksim pada pasien ISK di rawat inap di RS Paru Ario Wirawan Salatiga. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian deskriptif dengan pengambilan data secara retrospektif.Dianalisis dengan metode CEA dengan parameter Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER) dan Incremental Cost Effectiviness Ratio (ICER) dilihat dari outcome lama rawat inap. Sampel pada penelitian ini sebanyak 39 pasien diantaranya 22 pasien menggunakan Seftriakson dan 17 pasien menggunakan Sefotaksim. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, nilai ACER kelas I Sefotaksim sebesar Rp. 454.353. Nilai ACER kelas II Sefotaksim sebesar Rp. 212.283 dan nilai ICER sebesar -Rp. 134.987/hari. Nilai ACER kelas III Seftriakson sebesar Rp. 268.366. Biaya antibiotik yang paling cost-effective pada kelas I adalah Sefotaksim, paling cost-effective pada kelas II adalah Sefotaksim, paling cost-effective pada kelas III adalah Seftriakson.

PD44 Multi-Comparator Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio: A New Framework For Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 144-145
Author(s):  
Stefano Lucherini ◽  
Robert Hughes ◽  
Paul Okhuoya
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Second Best ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Impact

Introduction:Current practice in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) involves the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between a new intervention and one alternative comparator reflecting the standard of care. As this focuses on pairwise comparisons, rather than considering the whole range of available alternatives at any given time, this method fails to capture the full impact of bringing the new intervention to market.Methods:A multi-comparator ICER (MC-ICER) evaluating the impact of the new technology on patients treated with all comparators used in clinical practice, rather than a theoretical ‘second-best’ alternative only, was estimated. This can be achieved by weighting the incremental costs and benefits for each comparator by its change in market share to generate an MC-ICER. This is shown using a stylized example with three comparators.Results:The traditional ICER against the second-best alternative was USD 200,000 per QALY, while the estimated multi-comparator ICER is USD 133,548 per QALY, corresponding to a 33 percent decrease. This reflects the fact that patients who switch to the new intervention are not only those who had been previously treated with one particular comparator, as is assumed in a traditional CEA. The difference between the traditional ICER and the MC-ICER depends on how the new intervention impacts on the uptake of each comparator.Conclusions:Results show that, when comparator selection was made excluding dominated and extendedly-dominated alternatives, the MC-ICER, produced using the method described above, is lower than the traditional ICER comparing the new intervention to the second-best comparator. This captures the fact that patients may switch to the new intervention not only from the second-best comparator, but from the whole range of alternative treatments. Such patient movements determine the real impact, or opportunity cost, of the new intervention on the healthcare system and, therefore, should be captured in CEA alongside traditional one-way ICERs.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccines Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Scenario for Iran

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Atefeh Vaezi ◽  
Alipasha Meysamie
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Critical Measure ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life Year

COVID-19 vaccines are supposed to be critical measure for ending the pandemic. Governments had to decide on the type of vaccine to provide for their population. In this decision-making process, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a helpful tool. This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis utilized to calculate the incremental cost per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY) by vaccination compared to no vaccination for different COVID-19 vaccines. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was estimated at 6.2 to 121.2 USD to avert one DALY and 566.8 to 10,957.7 USD per one death. The lowest and highest ICERs belong to Ad26.COV2.S and CoronaVac, respectively. Considering the scenario of Iran, vaccines that are recommended include ad26.cov2.s, chadox1-S, rAd26-S + rAd5-S, and BNT162b2 in the order of recommendation.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Kloramfenikol Dan Seftriakson Untuk Pengobatan Demam Tifoid Pada Pasien Dewasa Di Rumah Sakit Sanglah Denpasar

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
Amelia Lorensia ◽  
Doddy De Queljoe ◽  
Made Dwike Swari Santi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Typhoid Fever ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Two Alternatives

The number of typhoid fever patient in Indonesia is still high. Typhoid fever can be treated by antibiotic therapy such as chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone which was given to adult patients who were diagnosed with typhoid fever in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital. A comparative study between two alternatives was conducted using the hospital perspective. Retrospective method was used to collect data from patient medical records, who was diagnosed and hospitalized in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital during January 2017 until July 2018. The cost analysis was perform using cost-effectiveness grid and cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) methods. Cost-effectiveness grid showed that dominant of ceftriaxone for patient with typhoid fever. ACER analysis for ceftriaxone was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectivenes (length of stay) 4.27 days, and was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 2.42 days. ACER analysis for chloramphenicol was IDR 2,555,464.22        with effectivenes (length of stay) 10.22 days, and was IDR 2,555,464.22 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 3.44 days. ACER analysis showed lower degree of ceftriaxone and higher effectiveness based on length of stay and the time of reaching normal temperature. The conclusion of this study is that ceftriaxone is more cost-effective than chloramphenicol.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 419-419
Author(s):  
Ali Raza Khaki ◽  
Yong Shan ◽  
Richard Nelson ◽  
Sapna Kaul ◽  
John L. Gore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

419 Background: Multiple single-arm clinical trials have shown promising pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with neoadjuvant ICIs in MIBC. However, ICIs remain costly. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing neoadjuvant ICIs with CBC. Methods: We applied a decision analytic simulation model with a health care payer perspective and two-year time horizon to compare neoadjuvant ICIs vs CBC. For the primary analysis we compared pembrolizumab with dose dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC). We performed a secondary analysis with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) as CBC and exploratory analyses with atezolizumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab as ICIs (vs both ddMVAC and GC). We input pCR rates from trials (ICIs) or a weighted average of prior studies (CBC) and costs from average sales price. Outcomes of interest included costs, 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per 2-year RFS. A threshold analysis estimated a pCR rate or price reduction for ICI to be cost-effective and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Results of the cost effectiveness analysis are shown in the table. The incremental cost of pembrolizumab compared with ddMVAC was $8,042 resulting in an incremental improvement of 0.66% in 2-year RFS for an ICER of $1,218,485 per 2-year RFS. A pCR of 71% or a 26% reduction in cost of pembrolizumab would render it more cost-effective with an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. GC required a 96% pembrolizumab cost reduction to achieve an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. Atezolizumab appeared to be more cost-effective than ddMVAC, even though the 2yr RFS was 0.66% worse. Conclusions: ICIs were not cost-effective as neoadjuvant therapies, except when atezolizumab was compared with ddMVAC. Pembrolizumab would approach cost-effective thresholds with 26% or 96% reduction in cost when compared to ddMVAC and GC, respectively. Randomized clinical trials, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to better understand the value of ICIs as neoadjuvant treatments. [Table: see text]

Abstract 25: Cost-Effectiveness of Public Automated External Defibrillators

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars W Andersen ◽  
Mathias J Holmberg ◽  
Asger Granfeldt ◽  
Lyndon P James ◽  
Lisa Caulley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Automated External Defibrillators ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Despite a consistent association with improved outcomes, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are used in only approximately 10% of public out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of the barriers towards increased use might be cost. The objective of this study was to provide a contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of public AEDs in the United States (US) to inform guidelines and public health initiatives. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of public AEDs to no AEDs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US over a life-time horizon. The analysis assumed a societal perspective and results are presented as costs (in 2017 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model inputs were based on reviews of the literature. For the base case, we modelled an annual cardiac arrest incidence per AED of 20%. It was assumed that AED use was associated with a 52% relative increase in survival to hospital discharge with a favorable neurological outcome in those with a shockable rhythm. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for joint parameter uncertainty. Consistent with recent guidelines from the American Heart Association, we used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Results: The no AED strategy resulted in 1.63 QALYs at a cost of $42,757. The AED strategy yielded an additional 0.26 QALYs for an incremental increase in cost of $13,793 per individual. The AED strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,797 per QALY gained. The yearly incidence of cardiac arrests occurring in the presence of an AED had minimal effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio except at very low incidences. At an incidence of 1%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $101,040 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses across a plausible range of health-care and societal estimates, the AED strategy remained cost-effective. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the AED strategy was cost-effective in 43%, 85%, and 91% of the scenarios at a threshold of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusion: Public AEDs are a cost-effective public health intervention in the US. These findings support widespread dissemination of public AEDs.

scholarly journals Atrial Fibrillation Screen, Management, and Guideline‐Recommended Therapy in the Rural Primary Care Setting: A Cross‐Sectional Study and Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of eHealth Tools to Support All Stages of Screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Orchard ◽  
Jialin Li ◽  
Ben Freedman ◽  
Ruth Webster ◽  
Glenn Salkeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND Internationally, most atrial fibrillation (AF) management guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for AF in people ≥65 years of age and oral anticoagulant treatment for those at high stroke risk (CHA₂DS₂‐VA≥2). However, gaps remain in screening and treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS General practitioners/nurses at practices in rural Australia (n=8) screened eligible patients (≥65 years of age without AF) using a smartphone ECG during practice visits. eHealth tools included electronic prompts, guideline‐based electronic decision support, and regular data reports. Clinical audit tools extracted de‐identified data. Results were compared with an earlier study in metropolitan practices (n=8) and nonrandomized control practices (n=69). Cost‐effectiveness analysis compared population‐based screening with no screening and included screening, treatment, and hospitalization costs for stroke and serious bleeding events. Patients (n=3103, 34%) were screened (mean age, 75.1±6.8 years; 47% men) and 36 (1.2%) new AF cases were confirmed (mean age, 77.0 years; 64% men; mean CHA₂DS₂‐VA, 3.2). Oral anticoagulant treatment rates for patients with CHA₂DS₂‐VA≥2 were 82% (screen detected) versus 74% (preexisting AF)( P =NS), similar to metropolitan and nonrandomized control practices. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for population‐based screening was AU$16 578 per quality‐adjusted life year gained and AU$84 383 per stroke prevented compared with no screening. National implementation would prevent 147 strokes per year. Increasing the proportion screened to 75% would prevent 177 additional strokes per year. CONCLUSIONS An AF screening program in rural practices, supported by eHealth tools, screened 34% of eligible patients and was cost‐effective. Oral anticoagulant treatment rates were relatively high at baseline, trending upward during the study. Increasing the proportion screened would prevent many more strokes with minimal incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio change. eHealth tools, including data reports, may be a valuable addition to future programs. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12618000004268.

scholarly journals Comparative clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 865-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Shuli Qu ◽  
Yanjun Liu ◽  
Xingxing Yao ◽  
Wei Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

Societal and Economic Effect of Meniscus Scaffold Procedures for Irreparable Meniscus Injuries

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1724-1734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan J. Rongen ◽  
Tim M. Govers ◽  
Pieter Buma ◽  
Janneke P.C. Grutters ◽  
Gerjon Hannink
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Meniscus Scaffolds

Background: Meniscus scaffolds are currently evaluated clinically for their efficacy in preventing the development of osteoarthritis as well as for their efficacy in treating patients with chronic symptoms. Procedural costs, therapeutic consequences, clinical efficacy, and future events should all be considered to maximize the monetary value of this intervention. Purpose: To examine the socioeconomic effect of treating patients with irreparable medial meniscus injuries with a meniscus scaffold. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Two Markov simulation models for patients with an irreparable medial meniscus injury were developed. Model 1 was used to investigate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by the possibility of preventing the development of osteoarthritis. Model 2 was used to investigate the short-term (5-year) cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by alleviating clinical symptoms, specifically in chronic patients with previous meniscus surgery. For both models, probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations were applied. Treatment effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while costs (estimated in euros) were assessed from a societal perspective. We assumed €20,000 as a reference value for the willingness to pay per QALY. Next, comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds. Results: Model 1 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €54,463 per QALY (€5991/0.112). A threshold analysis demonstrated that a meniscus scaffold should offer a relative risk reduction of at least 0.34 to become cost-effective, assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000. Decreasing the costs of the meniscus scaffold procedure by 33% (€10,160 instead of €15,233; an absolute change of €5073) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7876 per QALY. Model 2 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €297,727 per QALY (€9825/0.033). On the basis of the current efficacy data, a meniscus scaffold provides a relative risk reduction of “limited benefit” postoperatively of 0.37 compared with standard treatment. A threshold analysis revealed that assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000, a meniscus scaffold would not be cost-effective within a period of 5 years. Most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds were the cost of the scaffold procedure, cost associated with osteoarthritis, and quality of life before and after the scaffold procedure. Conclusion: Results of the current health technology assessment emphasize that the monetary value of meniscus scaffold procedures is very much dependent on a number of influential variables. Therefore, before implementing the technology in the health care system, it is important to critically assess these variables in a relevant context. The models can be improved as additional clinical data regarding the efficacy of the meniscus scaffold become available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document