Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27775764›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2016

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions for Bloodstream Infections Related to Central Catheters: A Systematic Review.

Teryl K Nuckols, Emmett Keeler, Sally C Morton, Laura Anderson, Brian Doyle, Marika Booth, Roberta Shanman, Jonathan Grein, Paul Shekelle

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Teryl K NuckolsCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California2RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Emmett KeelerRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Sally C MortonCollege of Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Laura AndersonCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California4Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles.
Brian DoyleVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Marika BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Roberta ShanmanRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Jonathan GreinCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Paul ShekelleRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California5VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
RAND Corporation · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

When Is Quality Improvement Cost Saving, Cost Effective, or Not a Good Value?R01HS022644 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NUCKOLS, TERYL · 2013 to 2013
$997k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceAlthough quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), their economic value is uncertain.

objectiveTo systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to prevent CLABSI and/or CRBSI in acute care hospitals. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, Worldcat, prior systematic reviews (January 2004 to July 2016), and IDWeek conference abstracts (2013-2016), was conducted from 2013 to 2016. We included English-language studies of any design that evaluated organizational or structural changes to prevent CLABSI or CRBSI, and reported program and infection-related costs. Dual reviewers assessed study design, effectiveness, costs, and study quality. For each eligible study, we performed a cost-consequences analysis from the hospital perspective, estimating the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incremental net savings. Unadjusted weighted regression analyses tested predictors of these measures, weighted by catheter-days per study per year.

findingsOf 505 articles, 15 unique studies were eligible, together representing data from 113 hospitals. Thirteen studies compared Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-recommended practices with usual care, including 7 testing insertion checklists. Eleven studies were based on uncontrolled before-after designs, 1 on a randomized controlled trial, 1 on a time-series analysis, and 2 on modeled estimates. Overall, the weighted mean IRR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.35-0.51) and incremental net savings were $1.85 million (95% CI, $1.30 million to $2.40 million) per hospital over 3 years (2015 US dollars). Each $100 000-increase in program cost was associated with $315 000 greater savings (95% CI, $166 000-$464 000; P < .001). Infections and net costs declined when hospitals already used checklists or had baseline infection rates of 1.7 to 3.7 per 1000 catheter-days. Study quality was not associated with effectiveness or costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interventions related to central venous catheters were, on average, associated with 57% fewer bloodstream infections and substantial savings to hospitals. Larger initial investments may be associated with greater savings. Although checklists are now widely used and infections have started to decline, additional improvements and savings can occur at hospitals that have not yet attained very low infection rates.

Indexed as

BacteremiaCatheter-Related InfectionsCentral Venous CathetersChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInfection ControlProgram EvaluationQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID27775764
PMCPMC6710008
OpenAlexW2532888632

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.