These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease.
    Author: Ainsworth AP, Rafaelsen SR, Wamberg PA, Pless T, Durup J, Mortensen MB.
    Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol; 2004 Jun; 39(6):579-83. PubMed ID: 15223684.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: It is not known whether initial endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of EUS, MRCP and ERCP was performed on 163 patients. The effectiveness of an investigation was defined as the percentage of patients with no need for further evaluation after the investigation in question had been performed. Costs were assumed from the budget-holder's point of view. RESULTS: MRCP, EUS and ERCP had a total accuracy of 0.91, 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. Eighty-four (52%) patients needed endoscopic therapy in combination with ERCP, giving an effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP of 0.44, 0.45 and 0.92, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP was 6622, 7353 and 4246 Danish Kroner (DKK) per fully investigated and treated patient (1 DKK=0.14 EUR). CONCLUSION: Within a patient population with a probability of therapeutic ERCP in 50% of the patients, ERCP was the most cost-effective strategy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]