ArticlePloS one2022
Cost effectiveness of temporary isolation rooms in acute care settings in Singapore.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital-at-home versus hospital admission for acute care in Singapore: a prospective quasi-experimental study on cost, utilisation and clinical outcomes.BMC health services research · 2026Observational
- The attributable mortality, length of stay, and health care costs of methicillin-resistantIJID regions · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the change to health service costs and health benefits from a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms that are effective at isolating the patient within a general ward environment. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a decision to adopt an existing temporary isolation room in a Singapore setting.
methodWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the impact of a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms for infection prevention. We estimated changes to the costs from implementation, the number of cases of healthcare associated infection, acute care bed days used, they money value of bed days, the number of deaths, and the expected change to life years. We report the probability that adoption was cost-effective by the cost by life year gained, against a relevant threshold. Uncertainty is addressed with probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the findings are tested with plausible scenarios for the effectiveness of the intervention.
resultsWe predict 478 fewer cases of HAI per 100,000 occupied bed days from a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms. This will result in cost savings of $SGD329,432 and there are 1,754 life years gained. When the effectiveness of the intervention is set at 1% of cases of HAI prevented the incremental cost per life year saved is $16,519; below the threshold chosen for cost-effectiveness in Singapore.
conclusionsWe provide some evidence that adoption of a temporary isolation room is cost-effective for Singapore acute care hospitals. It is plausible that adoption is a positive decision for other countries in the region who may demonstrate fewer resources for infection prevention and control.
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.