Fig. 3

Tornado diagram a The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) Tornado diagram used to assess the robustness of the base case analysis from the perspective of healthcare payers. A Tornado diagram depicting the results of the stochastic sensitivity analysis for ICER revealed that the cure rate for dysmenorrhea resulting from the guideline-based intervention influenced the base case; however, the robustness of the base case was confirmed. Indices of parameters (a) A: Cure rate for dysmenorrhea (0.643 to 0.957). B: Odds ratio for the development of dysmenorrhea (0.2 to 0.7). C: Utility for endometriosis III/IV (0.15* to 0.557). D: Proportion of visits in patients with endometriosis (0.0 to 0.07). E: Progression to endometriosis I/II (0.179 to 0.189). F: Discount rate (0.01 to 0.05). G: Utility for dysmenorrhea (0.63 to 0.644). H: Recurrence of dysmenorrhea (0.206 to 0.239). J: Cure rate of endometriosis I/II (0.322 to 0.478). K: Utility for endometriosis I/II (0.63 to 0.644). *: To take into account worst case scenario, lower value of the utility measuring for endometriosis III/IV was derived from the external criteria [20]. b The incremental cost Tornado diagram used to assess the robustness of the base case analysis from the societal perspective. A Tornado diagram depicting the results of the stochastic sensitivity analysis for IC revealed that the discount rate resulting from the guideline-based intervention influenced the base case; however, the robustness of the base case was confirmed. Indices of parameters (b) A: Discount rate (0.01 to 0.05). B: Recurrence of dysmenorrhea (0.206 to 0.239). C: Cure rate of endometriosis I/II (0.322 to 0.478). D: Odds ratio for the development of dysmenorrhea (0.2 to 0.7). E: Progression to endometriosis I/II (0.179 to 0.189). F: Cure rate for dysmenorrhea (0.643 to 0.957). G: Proportion of visits in patients with endometriosis (0.0 to 0.07)