ArticleSkeletal radiology2019
How we do it: shifting MR arthrogram compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the sterile pharmacy.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2019. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of shifting arthrogram injectate compounding from the fluoroscopy suite to the main hospital sterile pharmacy on cost, examination delays, and infection rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll arthrograms from the 12 months before (629 in total) and the 12 months after (699 in total) the change in arthrogram preparation procedure were compared to identify differences in examination delays and infection rate. The arthrogram formulation was sent to the Compounder's International Analytical Laboratory for stability testing. Finally, cost per injection analysis was performed to compare fluoroscopy suite with sterile pharmacy compounding.
resultsIn the 699 arthrograms performed in the 12 months following transfer of arthrogram preparation to the main hospital pharmacy, there were 0 reported examination delays, 0 reported infections, and a 53% decrease in the material cost per arthrogram. There were three recorded instances of fluoroscopy suite preparation of arthrogram injectate due to unexpected add-on patients. Outside stability testing determined that the arthrogram injectate retained at least 90% potency 30 h post-preparation.
conclusionShifting the compounding of the arthrogram injectate from the fluoroscopy room to the main hospital sterile pharmacy provides a modest cost saving and can be accomplished without examination delays or any increase in infection rate. It brought our practice into compliance with USP797, which is the current guideline for compounding practitioners, by transferring the compounding preparation of the arthrogram injectate from a procedure room to the sterile pharmacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29846755What 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.