Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31125382›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Cost-effectiveness of molecular diagnostic assays for the therapy of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department.

Ioannis M Zacharioudakis, Fainareti N Zervou, Fadi Shehadeh, Eleftherios Mylonakis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical impact and cost-consequence analysis of ePlex® blood culture identification panels for the rapid diagnosis of bloodstream infections: a single-center randomized controlled trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ioannis M ZacharioudakisInfectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Fainareti N ZervouInfectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Fadi ShehadehInfectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Eleftherios MylonakisInfectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4624-0777

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSepsis presents a major burden to the emergency department (ED). Because empiric inappropriate antimicrobial therapy (IAAT) is associated with increased mortality, rapid molecular assays may decrease IAAT and improve outcomes. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of molecular testing as an adjunct to blood cultures in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock evaluated in the ED.

methodsWe developed a decision analysis model with primary outcome the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed in terms of deaths averted. Costs were dependent on the assay price and the patients' length of stay (LOS). Three base-case scenarios regarding the difference in LOS between patients receiving appropriate (AAT) and IAAT were described. Sensitivity analyses regarding the assay cost and sensitivity, and its ability to guide changes from IAAT to AAT were performed.

resultsUnder baseline assumptions, molecular testing was cost-saving when the LOS differed by 4 days between patients receiving IAAT and AAT (ICER -$7,302/death averted). Our results remained robust in sensitivity analyses for assay sensitivity≥52%, panel efficiency≥39%, and assay cost≤$270. In the extreme case that the LOS of patients receiving AAT and IAAT was the same, the ICER remained≤$20,000/death averted for every studied sensitivity (i.e. 0.5-0.95), panel efficiency≥34%, and assay cost≤$313. For 2 days difference in LOS, the bundle approach was dominant when the assay cost was≤$135 and the panel efficiency was≥77%.

conclusionsThe incorporation of molecular tests in the management of sepsis in the ED has the potential to improve outcomes and be cost-effective for a wide range of clinical scenarios.

Indexed as

Blood CultureCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDisease ManagementEmergency Service, HospitalHealth Care CostsHumansLength of StayPathology, MolecularSepsisShock, SepticTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31125382
PMCPMC6534337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.