ArticleJournal of infection prevention2016
Economic impact of Tegaderm chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) dressing in critically ill patients.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit.Annals of intensive care · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the economic impact of a Tegaderm MATERIAL AND
methodsA decision analytical cost-consequence model was developed which assigned each patient with an indwelling intravascular catheter and a standard dressing, a baseline risk of associated dermatitis, local infection at the catheter insertion site and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), estimated from published secondary sources. The risks of these events for patients with a Tegaderm CHG were estimated by applying the effectiveness parameters from the clinical review to the baseline risks. Costs were accrued through costs of intervention (i.e. Tegaderm CHG or standard intravenous dressing) and hospital treatment costs depended on whether the patients had local dermatitis, local infection or CRBSI. Total costs were estimated as mean values of 10,000 probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) runs.
resultsTegaderm CHG resulted in an average cost-saving of £77 per patient in an intensive care unit. Tegaderm CHG also has a 98.5% probability of being cost-saving compared to standard i.v. dressings.
conclusionsThe analyses suggest that Tegaderm CHG is a cost-saving strategy to reduce CRBSI and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses.
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.