Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10160104›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1996

Treatment of urinary tract infection. Clinical and economic considerations.

R J Plumridge, C L Golledge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R J PlumridgeDepartment of Pharmacy, Fremantle Hospital, Western Australia, Australia.
C L Golledge
Fremantle Hospital · AUQueen Elizabeth II Medical Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The epidemiology, clinical manifestations, natural history and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are briefly reviewed as background to the economic considerations of diagnosis and treatment. Specific pharmacoeconomic analyses, such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, of UTI are not available. Analysis of the direct costs of diagnosis and treatment reveal that laboratory costs comprise the largest proportion, followed by physician consultation and pharmaceutical costs, respectively. Antimicrobial treatment has focused on acquisition cost without due regard to costs associated with method of delivery (especially with parenteral therapy), drug monitoring, complications, suboptimal therapy, drug wastage and waste disposal. These factors indicate a preference for ambulatory therapy using oral antimicrobials rather than institutional care using parenteral agents. Indirect costs, such as lost work time and quality-of-life factors, are not readily available. Evidence suggests that nosocomial UTIs add significantly to hospital costs. Studies citing the cost effectiveness of infection control programmes have often lacked detail and may have accrued benefits to the service without apportioning full costs. Future research directions include analysis of laboratory economics in relation to the clinical encounter, improved analysis of the utility and total costs of newer antimicrobials, quantifying home versus hospital treatment and improved costing of infection control programmes.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Infective Agents, UrinaryChildCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessHumansRecurrenceUrinary Tract InfectionsAnti-Infective Agents, Urinary

Identifiers

PMID10160104
OpenAlexW2004364594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.