342 −1,282 2.85 Other inpatient-related 10,967 12,783 10,677 0 59,929 11,481 14,032 8,266 0 57,863 0.959 −4,677 3,468 General practitioner 131 190 71 0 1,045 118 164 85 0 1,089 0.900 −43 71 Paramedical care 1,692 1,240 1,741 0 6,219 1,761 1,379 1,700 0 7,421 0.962 −493 362 Professional home care 1,743 2,465 156 0 10,187 1,660 2,519 check details 0 0 9,919 0.718 −600 865 Assistive devices and medical aids 531 1,393 103 0 8,466 662 1,395 193 0 5,383 0.843 −719 823 Medication 314 391 182 0 1,923 316 384 175 0 1,897 0.943 −120 125 Patient- and family-related

291 568 0 0 3,216 317 585 0 0 3,267 0.959 −208 158 Home adjustments 54 264 0 0 1,545 Selleckchem BIIB057 53 262 0 0 2,162 0.450 −87 89 Paid domestic

help 161 393 0 0 1,823 185 491 0 0 3,267 0.782 165 115 Meal services 76 207 0 0 927 79 218 0 0 930 0.868 −201 175 Total 23,353 16,124 21,446 3,497 74,054 22,896 16,834 21,470 2,332 73,362 0.665 −4,604 5,827 aMinimum bMaximum Cost-effectiveness Weight as outcome The intervention effect for weight, defined as the difference in change between the intervention and control group from baseline to 3 months postoperatively has a statistically significant positive

value, meaning that the patients in the intervention group gained more weight as compared with patients in the control group. The estimated intervention effect from baseline to 3 months postoperatively was 1.91 kg (95% CI, 0.60–3.22; p = 0.005). The ICER for total societal costs per kilogram weight increase was 241 Euro. As Adenosine presented in Table 3, the overwhelming majority of the dots in the CEP were click here located in the NE and SE quadrant. The ICERs located in the NE quadrant represent ratios indicating that the nutritional intervention was more costly and more effective as compared with usual care. The ICERs located in the SE represent ratios indicating that the nutritional intervention was less costly and more effective as compared with usual care. The CEAC (Fig. 1) indicates that, with a willingness to pay of 5,000 Euro, the probability that the nutritional intervention was cost-effective based on its total societal costs per kilogram weight was as high as 98%. Even at a willingness to pay € 2,500, the intervention was still ∼70% likely to be cost-effective.