ArticleRevista de neurologia2025
[Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an ICTUS Unit: A Case Study of the University Hospital Complex of Santiago de Compostela].
Article in Revista de neurologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionStroke has an enormous impact on society, both socially and economically. It is the most common cause of admission and prolonged stay in the Neurology ward.
methodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of stroke treatment in the Complejo Hospitalario de Santiago de Compostela, where patients are treated in a stroke unit. Firstly, an analysis of the costs of treatment in the stroke unit was carried out, which had not been done before. The costs were compared with those that would be incurred if the disease was treated without the stroke unit, verifying that the existence of such a unit implies an increase in treatment costs. Next, various parameters reflecting the efficacy of the treatment were analyzed to finally perform a cost-effectiveness analysis in order to determine whether the increase in costs is justified by an improvement in outcomes.
resultsStroke treatment in the centralized stroke unit would be cost-effective if we use mortality during hospitalization or 3 months after discharge, the mRS parameter at discharge or 3 months after discharge, and severe disability at discharge as measures of effectiveness.
conclusionThe increased costs of a stroke unit are justified by the improved health of the patients.
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.