Table 4.
Results of the sensitivity analysis for the fluoride varnish arm regarding the three scenarios, discounted
| Outcomes | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical efficacy for “Dentine decay” and “Fillings” | Clinical efficacy as per Scenario 1 and for “Fillings” and “Repeat fillings” | Clinical efficacy as per base‐case scenario with 3‐monthly applications | ||||
| Number (95% CI) | Costs ($) (95% CI) | Number (95% CI) | Costs ($) (95% CI) | Number (95% CI) | Costs ($) (95% CI) | |
| Total cost | 3338 (3104, 3503) | 3212 (2951, 3410) | 5066 (4948, 5137) | |||
| DMFT | 13.37 (12.12, 14.22) | 13.37 (12.12, 14.22) | 13.99 (13.13, 14.57) | |||
| QALY gained | 15.19 (15.00, 15.51) | 15.20 (15.00, 15.51) | 15.44 (15.19, 15.77) | |||
| ICER per prevented‐DMFT | 482 (235, 923) | 424 (190, 852) | 1807 (1108, 3010) | |||
| ICER per QALY gained | 2287 (1044, 4621) | 1999 (843, 4241) | 3941 (2561 6299) | |||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DMFT, decay, missing and filled teeth; QALY, quality‐adjusted life years; ICER, incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio.