Table 4.

Multi‐way sensitivity analysis of estimated centre values; the weights and costs (direct and allocated) were changed simultaneously to evaluate the frequency of centre ranking and the best and worst values estimated for each centre

Change	Centre ranking (frequency %)			Centre
%weight*	4‐5‐3‐2‐1	4‐3‐5‐2‐1	3‐4‐5‐2‐1	Scenario	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5
10 [10; 30]	64.40	27.04	8.56	Best	18.18	20.16	24.09	24.17	23.85
				Worst	13.55	14.98	17.12	17.63	17.40
20 [10; 30]	64.63	25.90	9.47	Best	18.20	20.22	24.02	24.24	23.90
				Worst	13.45	14.82	16.96	17.45	17.22
30 [10; 30]	63.99	25.89	10.12	Best	18.69	20.54	24.77	24.83	24.45
				Worst	13.28	14.66	16.80	17.12	16.91
40 [10; 30]	63.75	24.15	12.10	Best	18.98	20.75	24.73	25.12	24.77
				Worst	13.14	14.47	16.41	17.12	16.93
50 [10; 30]	62.95	22.67	14.38	Best	18.89	20.88	24.81	25.04	24.66
				Worst	12.87	14.44	16.43	16.82	16.61
60 [10; 30]	62.21	21.55	16.24	Best	18.96	21.12	24.92	25.23	24.89
				Worst	12.35	13.99	16.12	16.28	16.07

*The weights were changed from 10–60%; in all cases, the direct cost was changed by 10% and the allocated cost was changed by 30%.