ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2020
Cost-Utility Analysis of Prophylactic Dextrose Gel vs Standard Care for Neonatal Hypoglycemia in At-Risk Infants.
Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral dextrose gel to prevent hypoglycaemia in at-risk neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of oral dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycemia (hPOD): A multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2021Trial
- Prophylactic dextrose gel use in newborns at risk for hypoglycemia.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Observational
- Strategies to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes in babies at risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia.The Lancet. Child & adolescent health · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the long-term costs and impact on quality of life of using prophylactic dextrose gel in patients at increased risk of developing neonatal hypoglycemia. STUDY
designA cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the health system, using a decision tree to model the long-term clinical outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, vision disturbances, and learning disabilities, in patients at increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia who received prophylactic dextrose gel vs standard care. Model parameters including likelihoods of hypoglycemia and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, were based on the pre-Hypoglycemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose Study. Estimations of the likelihood of long-term condition(s), and their costs, were based on review of published literature.
resultsPatients who received prophylactic dextrose gel incurred costs to the health system of around US $14 000 over an 18-year time horizon, accruing 11.25 quality-adjusted life-years, whereas those who did not receive prophylactic treatment incurred cost of around $16 000 and experienced a utility of 11.10 quality-adjusted life-years.
conclusionsA prophylactic strategy of using dextrose gel in infants at increased risk of neonatal hypoglycemia is likely to be cost effective compared with standard care, to reduce the direct costs to the health system over an 18-year time horizon, and improve quality of life.
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.