ArticleBJS open2024
Optimal antiseptic skin preparation agents for minimizing surgical site infection following surgery: cost and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BJS open, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Conducted alongside Studies Embedded in Australian Healthcare Services and Programs: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Impact of a History of COVID-19 Infection on Postoperative Outcomes for Free Flap Patients.Ear, nose, & throat journal · 2024Article
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents.
methodsA cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t-test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
resultsThe null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t-test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection.
conclusionBased on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study.
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.