ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2015
Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of supplemental glutamine for parenteral nutrition of intensive-care patients.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU.Journal of intensive care · 2021Article
- Increasing the information provided by probabilistic sensitivity analysis: The relative density plot.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2020Article
- Article
- Current Evidence for the Use of Smoflipid® Emulsion in Critical Care Patients for Parenteral Nutrition.Critical care research and practice · 2018Review
- Therapeutic benefits of glutamine: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Biomedical reports · 2017Article
- Glutamine: an obligatory parenteral nutrition substrate in critical care therapy.BioMed research international · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesIntravenous (i.v.) glutamine supplementation of parenteral nutrition (PN) can improve clinical outcomes, reduce mortality and infection rates and shorten the length of hospital and/or intensive care unit (ICU) stays compared with standard PN. This study is a pharmacoeconomic analysis to determine whether i.v. glutamine supplementation of PN remains both a highly favourable and cost-effective option for Italian ICU patients. SUBJECTS/
methodsA previously published discrete event simulation model was updated by incorporating the most up-to-date and clinically relevant efficacy data (a clinically realistic subgroup analysis from a published meta-analysis), recent cost data from the Italian health-care system and the latest epidemiology data from a large Italian ICU database (covering 230 Italian ICUs and more than 77,000 patients). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.
resultsParenteral glutamine supplementation can significantly improve ICU efficiency in Italy, as the additional cost of supplemented treatment is more than completely offset by cost savings in hospital care. Supplementation was more cost-effective (cost-effectiveness ratio (CER)=[euro ]35,165 per patient discharged alive) than standard, non-supplemented PN (CER=[euro ]40,156 per patient discharged alive), and it resulted in mean cost savings of [euro ]4991 per patient discharged alive or [euro ]1047 per patient admitted to the hospital. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.
conclusionsAlanyl-glutamine supplementation of PN is a clinically and economically attractive strategy for ICU patients in Italy and may be applicable to selected ICU patient populations in other countries.
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.