Predicciones de CONCACAF Central American Cup Play-In

¿Qué es la Copa Centroamericana de la CONCACAF?

La Copa Centroamericana de la CONCACAF es una competencia que reúne a los mejores equipos de la región centroamericana. Este torneo es una oportunidad para que las selecciones muestren su talento y busquen un lugar en la etapa final de la Copa Oro. Para los fanáticos del fútbol, representa una oportunidad única de ver a sus equipos favoritos en acción antes de los grandes torneos internacionales.

No football matches found matching your criteria.

Partidos programados para mañana

Mañana será un día emocionante para los aficionados al fútbol con varios partidos programados en el marco de la Copa Centroamericana. Aquí te presentamos un resumen de los encuentros más esperados y las predicciones de apuestas expertas para cada uno de ellos.

Partido 1: Guatemala vs. Honduras

El primer partido del día enfrentará a Guatemala y Honduras, dos selecciones con una rica historia futbolística en la región. Guatemala viene de una serie de victorias impresionantes, mientras que Honduras tiene un equipo sólido y experimentado.

Favorito: Honduras
Predicción: Empate o victoria para Honduras
Bet Tips: Apuesta por el total de goles sobre 2.5.

Partido 2: El Salvador vs. Nicaragua

El Salvador, conocido por su agresivo estilo de juego, se enfrentará a Nicaragua, que ha mostrado mejoras significativas en su rendimiento reciente. Este partido promete ser muy competitivo.

Favorito: El Salvador
Predicción: Victoria ajustada para El Salvador
Bet Tips: Apuesta por el resultado exacto: 2-1 a favor de El Salvador.

Partido 3: Costa Rica vs. Belice

Costa Rica, con su experiencia en competiciones internacionales, se enfrentará a Belice, que busca hacer historia en este torneo. Costa Rica es ampliamente considerada como la favorita en este encuentro.

Favorito: Costa Rica
Predicción: Victoria contundente para Costa Rica
Bet Tips: Apuesta por el total de goles bajo 2.5.

Análisis Táctico y Formaciones Probables

Guatemala vs. Honduras

Guatemala probablemente utilizará una formación defensiva, buscando contragolpear rápidamente cuando tenga la oportunidad. Honduras, por otro lado, podría optar por un ataque más directo, utilizando su experiencia para superar la defensa guatemalteca.

El Salvador vs. Nicaragua

El Salvador podría emplear un esquema ofensivo con dos delanteros punzantes, buscando explotar cualquier debilidad defensiva en el equipo nicaragüense. Nicaragua podría responder con una formación más equilibrada, tratando de mantener el control del medio campo.

Costa Rica vs. Belice

Costa Rica probablemente saldrá con un equipo fuerte en todas las líneas, buscando dominar el juego desde el principio. Belice podría intentar una estrategia defensiva sólida y aprovechar cualquier contraataque para sorprender al rival.

Predicciones y Análisis de Apuestas Detalladas

Guatemala vs. Honduras - Predicciones Detalladas

Marcador Exacto: Predigo un empate emocionante con un marcador final de 1-1.
Totales de Goles: Considero que ambos equipos encontrarán la red al menos una vez, así que apuesta por más de un gol.
Pasadores Clave: Observa las jugadas del mediocampista guatemalteco Juan Carlos Plata.
Bet Tips Adicionales: Apuesta por el primer gol anotado por Honduras.

El Salvador vs. Nicaragua - Predicciones Detalladas

Marcador Exacto: Mi predicción es un triunfo estrecho para El Salvador con un marcador final de 2-1.
Totales de Goles: Estoy seguro de que veremos más de dos goles en este partido.
Jugador a Seguir: Mira las acciones del delantero salvadoreño Josué Martínez.
Bet Tips Adicionales: Apuesta por que ambos equipos marcarán.

1: # Cost-effectiveness of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in China 2: Author: Changqing Yuan, Hong Chen, Zhaohui Liang 3: Date: 6-10-2014 4: Link: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-12-22 5: Population Health Metrics: Research 6: ## Abstract 7: BackgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a new technology for rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and detection of rifampicin resistance in smear-positive patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in China. 8: MethodsA decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and outcomes of Xpert with conventional methods (smear microscopy and culture). The time horizon was one year from the date of symptom onset to treatment initiation; all costs were measured in US dollars (USD). The perspective was that of the Chinese healthcare system. 9: ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Xpert compared with smear microscopy was USD 172 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted; compared with culture, the ICER was USD 449 per DALY averted. 10: ConclusionsXpert is a cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of PTB in China. 11: ## Background 12: Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the most important public health problems in developing countries [1]. In China, there were an estimated two million new TB cases and approximately 40 000 deaths attributable to TB in 2010 [2]. Although the incidence rate of TB in China has decreased by more than one-third since 1990 [2], effective diagnosis and treatment remain significant challenges for TB control programmes. 13: Conventional diagnostic methods for TB include sputum smear microscopy and culture on solid media or liquid media [1]. Sputum smear microscopy has been used extensively for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in China because it is simple and inexpensive; however, it has poor sensitivity [1]. Sputum culture is more sensitive than smear microscopy but requires more than two weeks to obtain results [1]. In recent years, nucleic acid amplification tests have been developed to improve the sensitivity and speed of PTB diagnosis [1]. The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is one such test that can detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) DNA as well as rifampicin resistance within two hours [1]. A previous study has shown that Xpert is significantly more sensitive than smear microscopy or culture for detecting MTB [1]. 14: To assess whether Xpert should be adopted into routine clinical practice for diagnosing PTB in China, we evaluated its cost-effectiveness using decision analysis. 15: ## Methods 16: ### Model structure 17: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and outcomes associated with using Xpert versus conventional diagnostic methods for PTB diagnosis among symptomatic patients who are suspected of having PTB but have not yet been diagnosed [Figure 1]. 18: **Figure 1**Decision tree model. 19: Patients suspected of having PTB were assumed to visit a primary care facility first; sputum samples were collected and sent to the laboratory for testing using either smear microscopy or culture only or both methods sequentially or Xpert only. 20: The outcome measures included the cost per patient and the number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted per patient over one year from symptom onset to treatment initiation. 21: ### Parameter estimates 22: #### Epidemiological parameters 23: We obtained epidemiological parameter estimates from published literature; these are shown in Table 1[1–5]. 24: **Table 1**Epidemiological parameter estimates 25: | Parameter | Value | Source | 26: | --- | --- | --- | 27: | Prevalence of PTB among those with symptoms suggestive of PTB | Smear-positive PTB | Smear-negative PTB | Culture-positive PTB | Smear-positive PTB | Smear-negative PTB | 28: | China | Men | Women | Men | Women | 29: | Prevalence (%) | Men | Women | Men | Women | 30: | Overall prevalence (%) | Children (<15 years) | Adults (> = 15 years) | 31: | Prevalence (%) | 32: | Sensitivity (%) | 33: | Specificity (%) | 34: | Positive predictive value (%) | 35: | Negative predictive value (%) | 36: | Probability of drug resistance given positive result (%) | 37: | Prevalence (%) | 38: | Proportion with smear-negative PTB (%) | 39: | Probability of death without treatment (%) | 40: Values are presented as %. 41: #### Cost parameters 42: We obtained cost estimates from published literature or directly from hospitals; these are shown in Table 2[6–10]. 43: **Table 2**Cost parameter estimates 44: | Parameter name (unit) | Value (USD) | 45: | --- | --- | 46: | Hospitalization cost per day (per day)† | 47: | Hospitalization duration if diagnosed with smear-positive PTB by sputum smear microscopy only or culture only (days)† | 48: | Hospitalization duration if diagnosed with smear-negative PTB by sputum smear microscopy only or culture only (days)† | 49: | Hospitalization duration if diagnosed with smear-positive PTB by both methods sequentially (days)† | 50: | Hospitalization duration if diagnosed with smear-negative PTB by both methods sequentially (days)† | 51: | Hospitalization duration if diagnosed by Xpert only (days)† | 52]: 53: 54 Notes. 55: #### DALY parameters 56: We calculated DALYs based on estimates from published literature or directly from hospitals; these are shown in Table 3[11–14]. 57: **Table 3**DALY parameter estimates 58: | Parameter name(unit)‡‡‡‡¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###################################§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$$$$* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ******** | 59 Notes. 60### Uncertainty analysis 61We conducted probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation with Crystal Ball software to assess uncertainty associated with model inputs and results. 62### Scenario analyses 63We conducted scenario analyses to evaluate how changes in key parameters would affect our results. 64### Sensitivity analyses 65We conducted one-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate how changes in key parameters would affect our results. 66## Results 67### Base-case results 68In our base-case analysis, we found that compared with sputum smear microscopy alone or culture alone or both methods sequentially, Xpert had lower costs and better health outcomes; therefore, it was dominant [Table 4]. 69 Table 4 70| Strategya(USDb)C,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z] | 71| --- | 72| Strategya(USDb)C,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z] | 73| Strategya(USDb)C,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z] | 74| Cost per patient ($)DALYs per patientCost-effectiveness ratio ($ per DALY)a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z] | 75Notes. 76The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) associated with using Xpert compared with conventional diagnostic methods was USD 172 per DALY averted when compared with sputum smear microscopy alone and USD 449 per DALY averted when compared with sputum culture alone or both methods sequentially. 77### Scenario analyses 78When we varied key parameters within their plausible ranges as part of scenario analyses [Table 5], we found that our results were generally robust. 79 Table 5 80| Strategy(USD)bC,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z]a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L