Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Corresponding transitional probabilities of epidemiological variables and the utility values

From: Is it worth offering a routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy in developing countries? A Thailand case study

Input Variables Point estimates (mean) Standard error for uncertainty analysis Data sources
Epidemiological variables    
Probability of having suspected signs of CBD stones 0.3439 0.0123 22–24
Probability of having CBD stones among suspected cases 0.2929 0.0455 1
Proportion of ERCP available for patients who need it 0.5000 0.0498 Expert opinion
Probability of conversion from LC to OC 0.0550 0.0010 12, 24, 26
Probability of bile duct injury among patients undergoing LC 0.0050 0.0003 12
Probability of bile duct injury among patients conversed from LC to OC 0.0030 0.0017 Expert opinion
Probability of bile duct injury among patients undergoing OC 0.0024 0.0004 12
Probability of bile duct injury among patients undergoing open explored CBD 0.0010 0.0010 Expert opinion
Probability of retained CBD stones after undergoing ERCP 0.1279 0.0358 24–26
Utility variables    
Utility of case with completed OC 0.80 0.02 16
Utility of case with completed LC 0.90 0.02 16
Utility of case with bile-duct injury in the first year 0.80 0.02 16
Utility of case with bile-duct injury in the subsequent twenty years 0.89 0.01 16
  1. CBD = common bile duct
  2. ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograpy
  3. LC = laparoscopic cholecystectomy
  4. OC = open cholecystectomy