Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2017
Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral versus intravenous drip infusion of levofloxacin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in Chinese elderly patients.
Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the Value of Introducing an Oral Drug Delivery Option for Edaravone: A Review of Analyses Evaluating the Economic Impact of Oral versus Intravenous Formulations.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis of two different dosage regimens of levofloxacin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in elderly patients.
methodsA total of 108 elderly patients with acute lower respiratory tract infection who visited by our hospital between September 2013 and September 2014 were randomly divided into Group A and Group B, with 54 patients in each group. In Group A, levofloxacin injection was given for continuous intravenous infusion treatment, whereas in Group B, levofloxacin injection and levofloxacin capsule were given as sequential therapy (ST). The period of treatment for both the groups was 10 days, and minimum cost analysis was used to analyze the treatment.
resultsGroups A and B had cure rates of 61.1% and 59.3% (
conclusionLevofloxacin ST had relatively higher cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in elderly patients, especially Chinese.
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.