Biliary lithotripsy versus cholecystectomy: a cost-utility analysis.

U Stengele, B R Baumgartner, J L Chezmar, D P Slaker
{"title":"Biliary lithotripsy versus cholecystectomy: a cost-utility analysis.","authors":"U Stengele,&nbsp;B R Baumgartner,&nbsp;J L Chezmar,&nbsp;D P Slaker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluating the economic impact of medical procedures is of increasing importance in the American health care system, and this is especially true in the case of new medical technologies. Both the cost and the outcome of a treatment, and its alternatives must be evaluated. A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare cholecystectomy with biliary lithotripsy accompanied by bile acid therapy. Using a Markov approach, a model was designed to project expected cost and quality-adjusted survival over a 5-year period in patients with solitary stones of less than or equal to 20 mm in diameter. The viewpoint of the analysis was chosen to be that of the general society, since it can be considered as a consensus of all interest groups. Direct costs were obtained from hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia; indirect costs are based on average United States earnings. Utility was estimated using a model that combines different scales of well-being with an underlying etiology. The findings indicate that from society's point of view for all patients meeting lithotripsy inclusion criteria, based on this cost-utility analysis, biliary lithotripsy would be the procedure of choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":80212,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of lithotripsy & stone disease","volume":"3 2","pages":"133-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of lithotripsy & stone disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evaluating the economic impact of medical procedures is of increasing importance in the American health care system, and this is especially true in the case of new medical technologies. Both the cost and the outcome of a treatment, and its alternatives must be evaluated. A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare cholecystectomy with biliary lithotripsy accompanied by bile acid therapy. Using a Markov approach, a model was designed to project expected cost and quality-adjusted survival over a 5-year period in patients with solitary stones of less than or equal to 20 mm in diameter. The viewpoint of the analysis was chosen to be that of the general society, since it can be considered as a consensus of all interest groups. Direct costs were obtained from hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia; indirect costs are based on average United States earnings. Utility was estimated using a model that combines different scales of well-being with an underlying etiology. The findings indicate that from society's point of view for all patients meeting lithotripsy inclusion criteria, based on this cost-utility analysis, biliary lithotripsy would be the procedure of choice.

胆道碎石与胆囊切除术:成本-效用分析。
评估医疗程序的经济影响在美国的卫生保健系统中变得越来越重要,在新医疗技术的情况下尤其如此。必须对治疗的费用和效果以及替代方案进行评估。进行了成本效用分析,比较胆囊切除术与胆汁酸治疗的胆道碎石术。使用马尔可夫方法,设计了一个模型来预测直径小于或等于20mm的孤立性结石患者5年期间的预期成本和质量调整生存率。分析的观点选择一般社会的观点,因为它可以被认为是所有利益集团的共识。直接费用来自佐治亚州亚特兰大的医院;间接成本是根据美国的平均收入计算的。效用是用一个模型来估计的,这个模型结合了不同的幸福量表和潜在的病因。研究结果表明,从社会的角度来看,所有符合碎石纳入标准的患者,基于这种成本-效用分析,胆道碎石将是首选的手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信