{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0234375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006076388888888889, 'mean_word_length': 5.664739884393064, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Smoking Cessation: Standardizing the Cost-Effectiveness

Objectives . This study was performed to render cost-effectiveness studies on smoking cessation therapies, utilized until now, more comparable and more useful for medical decision making. Methods . The cost-effectiveness ratios reported by the studies were recalculated using a societal perspective and guidelines for economic evaluation. Results . The costs of individual interventions generally increased as a result of the standardization procedure, whereas the effect size decreased. This resulted in increases in the cost-effectiveness ratios for individual studies ranging from 120% to 5600%. Conclusions . The variation between studies in the percentage increase in cost-effectiveness ratios is huge. This means that not following guidelines when calculating cost-effectiveness ratios can result in large errors. Despite the fact that the standardized cost-effectiveness ratios of smoking interventions were higher than the unstandardized cost-effectiveness ratios, interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of smoking are cost-effective.