Distribution of propensity scores, defined as the probability of being selected into the NHANES-III cohort, by study (NHANES-III, OAI).

<p>The propensity score (x-axis) is defined as the probability of being selected into the NHANES-III cohort. The percentage of individuals with that propensity score (estimated using Kernel density estimation) in each cohort is shown on the y-axis. The solid line represents NHANES-III, while the dashed line represents OAI.</p

Comparison of NHANES-III and OAI study characteristics.

<p>Comparison of NHANES-III and OAI study characteristics.</p

Unadjusted proportion of being in fair or poor health for persons with radiographic knee OA from each study (OAI, NHANES-III).

<p>*Percentages are weighted using the NHANES-III sampling weights.</p><p>**Percentage of persons in fair/poor health was not estimated because there were zero persons with a missing race and missing knee pain in NHANES-III.</p><p>***Percentage of persons in fair/poor health was not estimated because there was only one person with a missing obesity status and missing knee pain status in OAI.</p

Demographic and clinical features of NHANES-III and OAI participants between the ages of 60 and 79 with radiographic knee OA.

<p>*Percentages are weighted using the NHANES-III sampling weights.</p

Comparison of the proportion of participants in fair or poor health from in OAI and NHANES-III.

<p>On the x-axis is the analysis type and on the y-axis is the percent in fair/poor health. The trimmed sample is defined as participants with propensity scores between 0.2 and 0.8. Dark bars represent OAI, while gray bars represent NHANES-III.</p

Sensitivity of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (vertical axis) to alternative undetected HIV prevalences (horizontal axis).

<p>The incremental cost-effectiveness of the <i>Provider</i> strategy, compared to <i>No Screen</i>, is shown by the open circles. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the <i>Counselor</i> strategy, compared to the <i>Provider</i> strategy is provided by the closed squares. The dashed line (open circles) is the incremental cost-effectiveness of the <i>Provider</i> strategy, compared to <i>No Screen</i>, at half the base case provider-based screening costs ($4.05/result received). The dashed line (solid squares) is the incremental cost-effectiveness of <i>Counselor</i> strategy, compared to the <i>Provider</i> strategy, at twice the base case counselor-based screening costs ($62.00/result received).</p

Outcomes of subjects with reactive results on HIV rapid test (1.5% of total tested).

<p>Outcomes of subjects with reactive results on HIV rapid test (1.5% of total tested).</p

Resource utilization and costs from the USHER Trial Counselor Arm.

<p>SD: Standard deviation.</p><p>*The estimate was obtained by dividing the annual counselor salary by the number of patients per year per counselor receiving test results in the counselor arm. We have intentionally applied a conservative calculation of the cost per result received in the counselor arm, by accounting for all counselor downtime.</p>†<p>Costs in this column are exclusive of downtime; this column multiplies the mean time per patient by the cost per minute of a counselor. This column is shown simply for comparison to the provider strategy and is not used in the cost-effectiveness analysis.</p

Sensitivity of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (vertical axis) to HIV testing program coverage (horizontal axis).

<p>The squares provide the cost-effectiveness of the <i>Counselor</i> strategy compared to the <i>Provider</i> strategy at alternative rates of counselor-based program coverage; provider participation is held constant at its base case value (27%). Counselor-based testing is cost-effective at a ratio of <$100,000/QALY so long as counselor-based program coverage exceeds 30%. The circles illustrate the incremental cost-effectiveness of <i>Counselor</i> strategy to <i>Provider</i> strategy testing at alternative rates of provider-based program coverage; counselor-based coverage is held constant at its base case value (57%).</p

Antiretroviral therapy input parameters for model-based analyses.

<p>*At 24 weeks.</p