ArticlePharmacoEconomics1994
Net economic benefit of a manufactured dinoprostone gel for pre-induction cervical ripening.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost implications in the management of induction of labour.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the net economic cost or benefit of pretreating women who have a medical indication for induction of labour, and an unprepared (unripe) cervix, with a manufactured dinoprostone (prostaglandin E 2) gel. Findings of a meta-analysis of the results of 3 large, randomised clinical trials were employed in the construction of a decision tree used in the economic analysis. For the intended target population, the primary clinical and economic outcomes of gel pretreatment were shortening of the treatment-to-delivery interval, an increase in the percentage of patients achieving labour and a decrease in the percentage of patients requiring delivery by caesarean section. Application of cost factors associated with these and other variables led to a finding of net savings associated with use of the dinoprostone gel pretreatment, compared with no gel pretreatment, of $US159 to $US214 (1993 prices) per treated patient, corresponding to the maximum and minimum duration of the pre-induction treatment period, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.