Cost of general anesthesia during radical gastrectomy using different specifications of propofol: cost-minimization analyses.

Jing Hu, Zhenzhou He

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Enhanced recovery open radical prostatectomy: costs and length of hospital stay.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2021
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

2 authors.

Jing HuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2000 Jiangyue Road, Shanghai 201112, China.

Zhenzhou HeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2000 Jiangyue Road, Shanghai 201112, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, the economic cost of anesthesiahas attracted attention. To compare the costs of three methods of general anesthesia (GA), a retrospective 1-year study was designed for patients undergoing radical resection for gastric carcinoma.

methodsA total of 398 patients were originally included in the study. Subjects were divided into three groups according to the mode of anesthesia: balanced anesthesia (BAL; n=258), total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA; n=36), and inhalational anesthesia (INH; n=104).

resultsWhen patients were undergoing elective radical resection for gastric carcinoma, the duration of anesthesia, age, duration of surgery, and postoperative analgesia were positively correlated with the total cost of anesthesia (including wastage of propofol 200 mg:20 mL). Duration of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia were positively correlated with the total cost of anesthesia (including wastage of propofol 500 mg:50 mL). However, the anesthesia group was negatively correlated with the total cost of anesthesia (including drug wastage). When propofol 500 mg:50 mL was used, the total cost of anesthesia and total cost of anesthesia per hour in the BAL group was higher than in the INH group. However, when excluding drug wastage (propofol 200 mg:20 mL), the BAL group was more expensive than the other two groups.

conclusionUse of propofol 200 mg:20 mL as a GA would save money.

Indexed as

cost-minimization analysisGastric cancergeneral anesthesiapropofolradical resection of gastric cancer

Identifiers

PMID26885066

PMCPMC4723911

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.