A Erratum on Cost effectiveness analysis of blonanserin versus ziprasidone as first-line treatment for patients with schizophrenia in China | Health Decision

A Erratum on Cost effectiveness analysis of blonanserin versus ziprasidone as first-line treatment for patients with schizophrenia in China

Authors

  • Xin Guan
  • Luying Wang
  • Yang Cao
  • Fenghao Shi
  • He Xu
  • Jie Ding
  • Meiyu Wu
  • Hongchao Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54844/hd.2023.0498

Author Biographies

Xin Guan

 

 

 

Luying Wang

 

 

Yang Cao

 

 

Fenghao Shi

 

 

He Xu

 

 

 

Jie Ding

 

 

Meiyu Wu

 

 

Hongchao Li

 

 

Downloads

Published

2023-11-24

How to Cite

1.
Guan X, Wang L, Cao Y, Shi F, Xu H, Ding J, Wu M, Li H. A Erratum on Cost effectiveness analysis of blonanserin versus ziprasidone as first-line treatment for patients with schizophrenia in China. Health Decision. 2023;1. doi:10.54844/hd.2023.0498

Issue

Section

Erratum

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Erratum

Erratum note: Cost effectiveness analysis of blonanserin versus ziprasidone as first-line treatment for patients with schizophrenia in China


Xin Guan1,2, Luying Wang1,2, Yang Cao1,2, Fenghao Shi1,2, He Xu1,2, Jie Ding3, Meiyu Wu3, Hongchao Li1,2,*

1School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 211198, Jiangsu Province, China

2Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing 211198, Jiangsu Province, China

3Sumitomo Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200025, China


*Corresponding Author:

Hongchao Li, E-mail: lihongchao@cpu.edu.cn; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-9724


Received: 20 November 2023 Revised: 22 November 2023 Accepted: 23 November 2023 Published: 24 November 2023


Erratum to: “Cost effectiveness analysis of blonanserin versus ziprasidone as first-line treatment for patients with schizophrenia in China (https://doi.org/10.54844/hd.2023.0362).

ERRATUM REASON

Due to the author's lack of careful proofreading, this article was accidentally missing the “Table 6 base case results”. In the last paragraph of Costs of Model Input section, the “Table 4” should be written as “Table 5” (A summary of cost inputs used in the model is showed in Table 5). In the Base case analysis of Results section, the “Table 5” should be written as “Table 6” (Table 6 shows the detailed results of the base case analysis). In the results section of the abstract, the “CNY 173,575” should be written as “CNY 173,757” (ziprasidone generated 4.28 QALYs with cost of CNY 173,757).

Table 6: Base case results
Costs (¥) Incremental costs (¥) QALY Incremental QALYs ICER
Ziprasidone 173,757 4.28
Blonanserin 167,011 -6,746 4.30 0.02 dominant
QALY: quality-adjusted life-years; ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

The authors and editors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way and does not involve any academic or ethical issues.