Literature DB >> 7921059

A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results.

J Cook1, J Richardson, A Street.   

Abstract

The techniques of cost utility analysis (CUA) were used to evaluate the treatment of gallstone disease by open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy and by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). The application of the techniques in this context raised three methodological questions which are not satisfactorily resolved in the literature. The first is whether an ex ante or ex post perspective is best adopted for the measurement of quality of life (QoL). The second is the method for converting a short term deterioration in QoL followed by full health into QALYs and the reliability of the methods available. The third is the issue of indirect costs which, in the context of a temporary disease state, cannot be easily avoided. The economic evaluation found laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be generally superior than the competitor technologies (entailing lower costs and better outcomes). However, the results were sensitive to assumptions about the perspective for measuring benefits and the inclusion of indirect costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7921059     DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730030305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  20 in total

1.  Culture, self-rated health and resource allocation decision-making.

Authors:  V L Wiseman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1999

2.  Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Paul McNamee; Sharon Glendinning; Jonathan Shenfine; Nick Steen; S Michael Griffin; John Bond
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-02

Review 3.  Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: implications for developing surgical technologies.

Authors:  Alexander C Allori; I Michael Leitman; Elizabeth Heitman
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Is fidaxomicin worth the cost? An economic analysis.

Authors:  Sarah M Bartsch; Craig A Umscheid; Neil Fishman; Bruce Y Lee
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Changing methods of imaging the common bile duct in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy era in Western Australia: implications for surgical practice.

Authors:  Nigel T Barwood; Liora J Valinsky; Michael S T Hobbs; David R Fletcher; Matthew W Knuiman; Steve C Ridout
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 7.  Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Davene R Wright; Eve Wittenberg; J Shannon Swan; Rebecca A Miksad; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Response to letter to editor: Capturing disutility from waiting time.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Kristina S Boye; Louis S Matza; Kimberly N Walter; Kate Van Brunt; Andrew C Palsgrove; Aodan Tynan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-03-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.