ArticlePharmacoEconomics1993
Cost analysis of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin with tobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominal infection.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Trial
- Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.PharmacoEconomics · 2001Article
- Costs, innovation and efficiency in anti-infective therapy.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Review
- Cost-effectiveness comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) versus tobramycin with clindamycin (T + C) in treatment of patients presenting with suspected acute intra-abdominal infection was assessed in a multicentre randomised clinical trial conducted during 1985 to 1986. The principal finding was a lower incidence of treatment failure among patients in the I/C arm (p = 0.043). We now report results of retrospective analysis of hospital treatment costs during an episode of infection incurred by patients enrolled in the trial. Treatment costs (in 1989 US dollars) were calculated from a hospital perspective, using an intention-to-treat analysis. Among 161 patients with low illness severity (APACHE II less than or equal to 14) the mean cost for the episode of care was $US7038 in the I/C arm versus $US8404 for the T + C regimen; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.40). For 93 more severely ill patients (APACHE II score greater than 14) the mean cost for the I/C arm was $US19 985 versus $US16 582 for the T + C regimen; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). Multiple regression analysis, controlling for patient demographics and study site, showed that the cost of the episode was positively associated with the severity of illness (p less than 0.01) and presence of malnutrition (p < 0.01), but that the total cost of the episode of infection was not statistically different for the 2 drug regimens (p = 0.45).
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.