ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-Coated vs. Standard Peripheral Insertion Central Catheters in Patients with Hematologic Disease: A Health Economic Analysis.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of chlorhexidine-coated (AGBA) peripheral insertion central catheters (PICCs) versus standard PICCs for managing catheter-related complications among patients with hematologic disease.
methodsA decision tree health economic model was developed, incorporating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the literature, as well as complication rates and per-patient costs from a randomized controlled trial. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed against established willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to address assumptions and uncertainties.
resultsThe mean healthcare cost per patient of standard PICCs was RMB 21,987.32 (USD 3242.82, at an average exchange rate of RMB 678.03 = USD 100), affecting 0.68 QALYs in 90 days. The mean healthcare cost per patient of AGBA PICCs was RMB 19,696.23 (USD 2904.92), affecting 0.73 QALYs in 90 days, thus resulting in a saving of RMB 2291.10 (USD 428.44). After the model simulation, standard PICCs resulted in a reduction of 0.05 QALYs. The ICER for AGBA PICCs compared with standard PICCs was consistently centered at RMB 4271.31 (USD 629.96).
conclusionsone-way sensitivity analyses of cost-effectiveness versus WTP confirmed the robustness of the model across various parameter changes, indicating that AGBA PICCs could provide significant healthcare savings over a 1-year period when adopted in routine chemotherapy treatment for patients with hematologic disease.
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.