ArticleAtencion primaria2000
[A pharmacoeconomic study of the antibiotic treatment of the acute manifestations of chronic bronchitis in primary care. The DAFNE Group].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2000. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Direct costs to primary care of chronic bronchitis. Analysis of a prospective study].Atencion primaria · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and the cost of antibiotic treatment of chronic bronchitis (CB) crises and COPD in PC.
designProspective cohort study of patients with CB and COPD monitored in health districts. Information was requested on the first ten patients, without any selection, who attended for consultation with the diagnosis of a crisis in their CB or COPD. They were followed for 30 days and the direct costs of their care were evaluated. The cost-effectiveness of the various types of antibiotic treatment was analysed.
results268 doctors took part and provided 2354 patients who were valid for the study. 20.8% (490/2354) came back within 30 days because of poor evolution: 79 (3.3%) of these needed hospital admission. The average cost of the failure was 57,687 pesetas. The cost of the use of cephixime was 14,388 pesetas per crisis, with 82.5% effectiveness. The cost for the alternative of "other antibiotics" was 19,775 pesetas, with 73.4% effectiveness. For the alternative amoxycillin-clavulanic acid, the cost was 18,647 pesetas with 74.4% effectiveness.
conclusionsA fifth of the patients evolved poorly, which led to the admission of 3.3%. Cephixime treatment was the dominant treatment, as it is more effective and cheaper than all the other antibiotics and than amoxycillin-clavulanic acid treatment. The cost of the therapeutic failure of crises is more than three times greater than the cost of antibiotic treatment. The rate of failure, which means considerable morbidity at very high cost, must be reduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10730438PMC7675837W191945291What 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.