Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22699792›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2012

Cost-analysis of PCR-guided pre-emptive antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections: an analytic decision model.

C Hübner, N-O Hübner, A Kramer, S Fleßa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

C HübnerInstitute of Health Care Management, Department of Law and Economics, University of Greifswald, Friedrich-Loeffler-Str. 70, 17489, Greifswald, Germany. claudia.huebner@uni-greifswald.de
N-O Hübner
A Kramer
S Fleßa

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine whether rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based screening is a cost-efficient tool to optimize pre-emptive antibiotic therapy of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA and MSSA, respectively) infections. A decision analytic cost model was developed, based on data from the peer-reviewed literature. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate the impact of variation in the MRSA rate, cost ratio of the cost of inappropriate antibiotic therapy to the cost of appropriate antibiotic therapy, PCR test cost, and total hospital costs per case. At a current MRSA rate of 24.5 % in Germany, PCR-guided treatment regimens are cost-efficient compared to empirical strategies. The costs of alternative treatment strategies differ, on average, up to 1,780 <euro> per case. An empirical MRSA treatment strategy is least costly when the cost ratio is less than 1.06. When the total hospital cost per MRSA case is increased, pre-emptive MSSA treatment with PCR tests achieves the lowest average cost. Early verification and adaptation of an initial pre-emptive antibiotic treatment of S. aureus infections using PCR-based tests are advantageous in Germany and other European countries. PCR tests, accordingly, should be considered as elements in antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCosts and Cost AnalysisCross InfectionGermanyHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPolymerase Chain ReactionStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

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.