Figure 17: Value tree number 1 (second iteration)

Figure 18: Value tree number 2 (second iteration)

Figure 19: Value tree number 3 (second iteration)

Value tree 1 of this second iteration (Figure 17) was chosen becauseof data availability, this tree offered the best opportunity to include most RCT data to support the criteria.However, the criteria the final value tree have some problems regarding preference comparable criteria in the benefit and risk branches. Permanent disabilities due to haemorrhage events is expected to be associated with a risk aversion that is very close to (if not identical) to the risk aversion expressed for the disabling ischaemic stroke events. However, the criteria "major haemorrhage", although including disabling events, points towards severity in terms of treatment of the event and not permanent disabilities. Therefor value tree 3 (Figure 19) was chosen as an alternant value tree to insure that this problem was taken into account in the final benefit-risk considerations.