Suppr超能文献

远端输尿管结石治疗选择中的成本效益与患者偏好:基于文献的决策分析

Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: a literature-based decision analysis.

作者信息

Wolf J S, Carroll P R, Stoller M L

机构信息

Department of Urology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco, USA.

出版信息

J Endourol. 1995 Jun;9(3):243-8. doi: 10.1089/end.1995.9.243.

Abstract

Ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) battle for supremacy in the management distal ureteral calculi. In order to clarify issues surrounding this controversy, we created a decision tree modeling URS or SWL with literature-based probabilities and used as endpoints both cost and patient preferences. Ureteroscopy was more successful than single-session or multiple-session SWL, 92.1% v 74.3% or 84.5%, and had a lower retreatment/complication rate. Although initial SWL was only slightly more expensive than URS, $4,420 v $4,337, the difference increased when the additional costs of complications and retreatment were calculated, $6,745 v $5,555. Using values for an "average" patient, SWL was preferred to URS in terms of patient satisfaction. The most important factors distinguishing between URS and SWL were the success of treatment, the cost of initial therapy, and patient attitudes toward unplanned ancillary procedures and retreatment. Although no alteration of success rates and cost figures within reasonable ranges made URS less cost-effective than SWL, individual differences in patients' aversion for complications allowed URS to be preferred to SWL in some situations. Therefore, SWL is less cost-effective than URS and is not necessarily preferred by patients. The physician should be aware of the principal determinants of the choice between URS and SWL treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

摘要

输尿管镜检查(URS)和体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)在远端输尿管结石的治疗中争夺主导地位。为了澄清围绕这一争议的问题,我们创建了一个决策树,用基于文献的概率对URS或SWL进行建模,并将成本和患者偏好作为终点指标。输尿管镜检查比单次或多次体外冲击波碎石术更成功,成功率分别为92.1%和74.3%或84.5%,且再次治疗/并发症发生率更低。虽然初始体外冲击波碎石术仅比输尿管镜检查略贵,分别为4420美元和4337美元,但在计算并发症和再次治疗的额外成本后,差异增大,分别为6745美元和5555美元。就“普通”患者而言,在患者满意度方面,体外冲击波碎石术比输尿管镜检查更受青睐。区分输尿管镜检查和体外冲击波碎石术的最重要因素是治疗成功率、初始治疗成本以及患者对计划外辅助程序和再次治疗的态度。尽管在合理范围内成功率和成本数据的变化并没有使输尿管镜检查的性价比低于体外冲击波碎石术,但患者对并发症的厌恶程度存在个体差异,这使得在某些情况下输尿管镜检查比体外冲击波碎石术更受青睐。因此,体外冲击波碎石术的性价比低于输尿管镜检查,而且不一定更受患者青睐。医生应了解在输尿管镜检查和体外冲击波碎石术治疗远端输尿管结石之间进行选择的主要决定因素。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验