Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2001
Cost effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in liver transplant patients.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in liver transplant patients.
designRandomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with an integrated economic evaluation.
settingTwo university hospitals in The Netherlands. Cost effectiveness was assessed from a societal perspective. PATIENTS AND
participants58 patients who underwent liver transplantation and received SDD (n = 29) or placebo (n = 29) pre- and postoperatively.
interventionsSDD medication and placebo.
main outcome measuresInfection episodes, days of infection, costs of SDD and routine cultures, mean other direct medical costs per patient and additional costs of severe infection.
resultsCosts of SDD medicine and routine cultures were on average 3,100 US dollars ($US; 1997 values) per patient who underwent SDD. Both preoperatively and postoperatively, costs other than SDD and cultures did not significantly differ between the SDD and the placebo groups (preoperative, $US2,370 vs $US2,590; postoperative, $US25,455 vs $US24,915). Additional postoperative costs of severe infections were $US250 per day per patient. There were no significant differences in the mean number of infection episodes between groups.
conclusionsSDD leads to the additional costs of SDD medication and routine cultures, whereas no savings in other costs and no improvement in infection episodes are realised. Consequently, SDD may be considered as a nonefficient approach in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The additional costs of severe infection are considerable.
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.