ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2019
Is Albumin-based Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Justifiable? An Evidence from a Cost-effectiveness Evaluation.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids.Intensive care medicine · 2024Guideline
- Cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020Pooled it
- Management of endothelial dysfunction in septic shock: role of albumin administration.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Factors influencing DVT formation in sepsis.Thrombosis journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid and antimicrobial therapy are the essential parts of sepsis management. The type of fluid to resuscitate with is an unsettled issue in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of albumin-based resuscitation over crystalloids.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by extracting data from a database of Sina Hospital, Islamic Republic of Iran. A decision tree was constructed by using Tree Age Pro 2011. The patients were grouped based on the types of fluids used for resuscitation into crystalloid alone or crystalloid + albumin groups at the initial decision node. The patients were followed from the onset of severe sepsis and septic shock upto 28 days. The healthcare payers' perspective was considered in constructing the model. The cost was measured in US dollars and the effectiveness was measured by life years gained.
resultsThe addition of albumin during resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock has an effectiveness gain of 0.09 life years and cost increment of 495.00 USD. The estimated ICER for this analysis was 5500.00 USD per life year gained. The probability that albumin is cost-effective at one GDP per capita is 49.5%.
conclusionAlbumin-based resuscitation is not cost-effective in Iran when a GDP per capita was considered for a life year gain. The cost-effectiveness was insensitive to the cost of standard care. We recomend the caustious use albumin as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline.
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.