ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2019
A cost-effectiveness analysis of mupirocin and chlorhexidine gluconate for
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis and Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections by Staphylococcus aureus after Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- Pre-surgical Nasal Decolonization ofOntario health technology assessment series · 2022Review
- Effectiveness of prophylactic intranasal photodynamic disinfection therapy and chlorhexidine gluconate body wipes for surgical site infection prophylaxis in adult spine surgery.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While decolonization of Methods: Decision analytic models and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for a cost-effectiveness analysis, with the effectiveness of decolonization based on a large published pre- and post- intervention trial. The primary outcomes of the models were infections prevented and health care costs. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of decolonization in a hypothetical cohort of adult patients undergoing hip and knee replacement in Alberta, Canada. Information on the incidence of complex surgical site infections (SSIs), as well as the cost of care for patients with and without SSIs was taken from a provincial infection control database, and health administrative data. Results: Use of the decolonization bundle was cost saving compared to usual care ($153/person), and resulted in 16 complex Conclusions: Decolonization for
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.