Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2017
Prospective economic evaluation alongside the non-invasive ventilation trial.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of Antenatal Corticosteroid Therapy vs No Therapy in Women at Risk of Late Preterm Delivery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA pediatrics · 2019Trial
- Article
- Patient Survey Regarding Non-Medical Burdens of Care at a Parental Fetal Care Center.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of heart rate characteristics monitoring to improve survival for very low birth weight infants.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- The Intertemporal Role of Respiratory Support in Improving Neonatal Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Clinical Study of Different Modes of Non-invasive Ventilation Treatment in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome After Extubation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Article
- Length of stay and cost of birth hospitalization: effects of subfertility and ART.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2018Article
- [Research advances in neonatal nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2017Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of nasal continuous positive pressure (nCPAP) compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the context of the reported randomized clinical trial. STUDY
designUsing patient-level data from the clinical trial, we undertook a prospectively planned economic evaluation. We measured costs, from a third-party payer perspective in all patients, and from a societal perspective in a subgroup with a time horizon through the earlier of discharge, death or 44 weeks post-menstrual age.
resultsFrom the third-party payer perspective, the mean cost of hospitalization per infant was statistically similar, $143 745 in the NIPPV group compared to $140 403 in the nCPAP group. Cost-effectiveness evaluation revealed a 61% probability that NIPPV is more expensive and less effective than nCPAP. Similar results were found in subgroup analysis from a societal perspective.
conclusionIn addition to being clinically equivalent, economic evaluation confirms that NIPPV, as employed in this trial, is also not economically favorable.
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.