Trial reportPharmacoEconomics1999
Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic regimens for secondary peritonitis of gastrointestinal origin in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005Pooled it
- Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Canadian practice guidelines for surgical intra-abdominal infections.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost effectiveness of sequential intravenous (i.v.) to oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v./PO) with that of i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v.) and i.v. imipenem-cilastatin (IMI i.v.) in patients with intra-abdominal infections. DESIGN AND
participantsPatients enrolled in a double-blind randomised clinical trial were eligible for inclusion into this cost-effectiveness analysis. Decision analysis was used to characterise the economic outcomes between groups and provide a structure upon which to base the sensitivity analyses. 1996 cost values were used throughout.
settingThe economic perspective of the analysis was that of a hospital provider. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND
resultsAmong 446 economically evaluable patients, 176 could be switched from i.v. to oral administration. The 51 patients randomised to CIP/MTZ i.v./PO who received active oral therapy had a success rate of 98%, mean duration of therapy of 9.1 days and mean cost of $US7678. There were 125 patients randomized to either CIP/MTZ i.v. or IMI i.v. who received oral placebo while continuing on active i.v. antibacterials; their success rate was 94%, mean duration of therapy was 10.1 days and mean cost was $US8774 (p = 0.029 vs CIP/MTZ i.v./PO). Of the 270 patients who were unable to receive oral administration, 97 received IMI i.v. and had a success rate of 75%, mean duration of therapy of 13.8 days and a mean cost of $US12,418, and 173 received CIP/MTZ i.v. and had a success rate of 77%, mean duration of therapy of 13.4 days and mean cost of $US12,219 (p = 0.26 vs IMI i.v.).
conclusionsIn patients able to receive oral therapy, sequential i.v. to oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was cost effective compared with full i.v. courses of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole or imipenem-cilastatin. In patients unable to receive oral therapy, no difference in mean cost was found between i.v. imipenem-cilastatin or i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole.
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.