Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: Cost-Utility and value-of-information analysis

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 15-29

  Gurusamy, Kurinchi ^a   Wilson, Edward ^b   Burroughs, Andrew K ^c   Davidson, Brian R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Budget impact analysis; Cholecystectomy; Cost utility; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Gallstones; Value of information analysis.

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLELITHIASIS; COMMON BILE DUCT STONE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; PATIENT SAFETY; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; QUALITY OF LIFE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84055177529     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11594950-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ballal M, David G, Willmott S, et al. Conversion after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in England. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 2338-44
2. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) online. Main procedures and interventions: 4 character [online]. Available from URL: Http://www.hesonline. nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentSer ver?siteID=1937&categoryID=215 [Accessed 2009 Nov 21]
3. Hainsworth PJ, Rhodes M, Gompertz RH, et al. Imaging of the common bile duct in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gut 1994; 35: 991-5 (Pubitemid 24202733)
4. Ausch C, Hochwarter G, Taher M, et al. Improving the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: The routine use of preoperative magnetic resonance cholangiography. Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 574-80 (Pubitemid 40897974)
5. Yang MH, Chen TH, Wang SE, et al. Biochemical predictors for absence of common bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 1620-4
6. Ludwig K, Kockerling F, Hohenberger W, et al. Surgical therapy in cholecysto-/choledocholithiasis: Results of a Germany-wide questionnaire sent to 859 clinics with 123 090 cases of cholecystectomy [in German]. Chirurg 2001; 72: 1171-8 (Pubitemid 33688437)
7. Spelsberg FW, Nusser F, Huttl TK, et al. Management of cholecysto- and choledocholithiasis: Survey and analysis of 16 615 cholecystectomies and common bile duct explorations in Bavaria. Zentralbl Chir 2009; 134: 120-6
8. Gurusamy K, Sahay SJ, Burroughs AK, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intraoperative versus preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and suspected common bile duct stones. Br J Surg 2011 Jul; 98 (7): 908-16
9. Wilson E, Gurusamy K, Gluud C, et al. Cost-utility and value-of-information analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2010 Feb; 97 (2): 210-9
10. Hochman D, Louie B, Bailey R. Determination of patient quality of life following severe acute pancreatitis. Can J Surg 2006; 49: 101-6
11. NHS. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun [online]. Available from URL: Http:// www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpda tedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2009 Jul 21]
12. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: Not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339-47 (Pubitemid 40514748)
13. de Beaux AC, Palmer KR, Carter DC. Factors influencing morbidity and mortality in acute pancreatitis; an analysis of 279 cases. Gut 1995; 37: 121-6
14. Goldacre MJ, Roberts SE. Hospital admission for acute pancreatitis in an English population, 1963-98: Database study of incidence and mortality. BMJ 2004; 328: 1466-9
15. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. Trends in the epidemiology of the first attack of acute pancreatitis: A systematic review. Pancreas 2006; 33: 323-30 (Pubitemid 44690719)
16. Arseneau KO, Cohn SM, Cominelli F, et al. Cost-utility of initial medical management for Crohn's disease perianal fistulae. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1640-56 (Pubitemid 32523483)
17. Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results. Health Econ 1994; 3: 157-68
18. UK Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2007-08 [online]. Available from URL: Http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicy AndGuidance/DH-098945 [Accessed 2009 Dec 6]
19. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD006231
20. Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004
21. Tufts Medical Center; Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry [online]. Available from URL: Http://www.cearegis try.org [Accessed 2009 Dec 6]
22. Cook J, Richardson J. Quality of lifemeasurement of patients receiving treatments for gallstone disease: Options, issues and results [working paper 33]WestHeidelberg (VIC):Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1993 Sep [online]. Available from URL: Http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/ pubs/wp33.pdf. [Accessed 2008 Oct 31]
23. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779-87 (Pubitemid 34041389)
24. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision-making, uncertainty and the value of information. In:GrayA, BriggsA, editors. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 165-200
25. Terruzzi V, Radaelli F, MeucciG, et al. Is the supine position as safe and effective as the prone position for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective randomized study. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1211-4 (Pubitemid 41763538)
26. Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, et al. Identifying research priorities: The value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 33-43
27. Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins NS, Claxton K, et al. The costeffectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 2007; 46: 1729-35 (Pubitemid 350018498)
28. Dong H, Coyle D, Buxton M. Value of information analysis for a new technology: Computer-assisted total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 337-42 (Pubitemid 46956878)
29. Latimer N, Lord J, Grant RL, et al. Value of information in the osteoarthritis setting: Cost effectiveness of COX-2 selective inhibitors, traditional NSAIDs and proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29 (3): 225-37
30. O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, et al. Uncertain judgements: Eliciting experts' probabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006
31. Dale W, Basu A, Elstein A, et al. Predicting utility ratings for joint health states from single health states in prostate cancer: Empirical testing of 3 alternative theories. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 102-12
32. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: Evidencebased guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 879-97 (Pubitemid 38715998)