ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. MATERIALS AND
methodsA decision tree model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections for patients with a short-term indwelling urinary catheter. The model accounted for incidence of urinary tract infections with and without the use of prophylactic antibiotics, incidence of antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections, as well as costs associated with diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections and antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections. Costs were calculated from the health care system's perspective. We conducted one-way sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe base case analysis showed that the use of prophylactic antibiotics is cost-saving in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections. The use of prophylactic antibiotics resulted in lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years compared with no prophylactic antibiotics. Sensitivity analyses showed that the optimal strategy changes to no prophylactic antibiotics when the incidence of urinary tract infections after prophylactic antibiotics exceeds 22% or the incidence of developing urinary tract infections without prophylactic antibiotics is less than 12%. Varying the costs of prophylactic antibiotics, urinary tract infection treatment, or antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infection treatment within a reasonable range did not change the optimal strategy.
conclusionsProphylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections is cost-effective under most conditions. These results were sensitive to the likelihood of developing catheter-associated urinary tract infections with and without prophylactic antibiotics. Our results are limited to the cost-effectiveness perspective on this clinical practice.
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.