ArticleBMJ open2020
Cost-benefit analysis of surveillance for surgical site infection following caesarean section.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices to Manage Cesarean Section Incisions.American journal of perinatology · 2024Pooled it
- Analysis of Hospital-Acquired Infections in a Chinese Specialized Rehabilitation Hospital: A Five-Year Surveillance Study (2020-2024).Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Single-use negative pressure wound therapy to prevent surgical site complications in high-risk patients undergoing caesarean sections: a real-world study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Observational
- Cost-Utility Analysis of the Caresyntax Platform to Identify Patients at Risk of Surgical Site Infection Undergoing Colorectal Surgery.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Reducing Surgical Site Infections Post-Caesarean Section.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Article
- Quantifying the primary and secondary effects of antimicrobial resistance on surgery patients: Methods and data sources for empirical estimation in England.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Assessing the added value of group B Streptococcus maternal immunisation in preventing maternal infection and fetal harm: population surveillance study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Article
- Microbial Air Monitoring in Turbulent Airflow Operating Theatres: Is It Possible to Calculate and Hypothesize New Benchmarks for Microbial Air Load?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Abdominal Cutaneous Thermography and Perfusion Mapping after Caesarean Section: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the economic burden to the health service of surgical site infection following caesarean section and to identify potential savings achievable through implementation of a surveillance programme.
designEconomic model to evaluate the costs and benefits of surveillance from community and hospital healthcare providers' perspective.
settingEngland.
participantsWomen undergoing caesarean section in National Health Service hospitals.
main outcome measureCosts attributable to treatment and management of surgical site infection following caesarean section.
resultsThe costs (2010) for a hospital carrying out 800 caesarean sections a year based on infection risk of 9.6% were estimated at £18 914 (95% CI 11 521 to 29 499) with 28% accounted for by community care (£5370). With inflation to 2019 prices, this equates to an estimated cost of £5.0 m for all caesarean sections performed annually in England 2018-2019, approximately £1866 and £93 per infection managed in hospital and community, respectively. The cost of surveillance for a hospital for one calendar quarter was estimated as £3747 (2010 costs). Modelling a decrease in risk of infection of 30%, 20% or 10% between successive surveillance periods indicated that a variable intermittent surveillance strategy achieved higher or similar net savings than continuous surveillance. Breakeven was reached sooner with the variable surveillance strategy than continuous surveillance when the baseline risk of infection was 10% or 15% and smaller loses with a baseline risk of 5%.
conclusionSurveillance of surgical site infections after caesarean section with feedback of data to surgical teams offers a potentially effective means to reduce infection risk, improve patient experience and save money for the health service.
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.