ArticlePloS one2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a postoperative 48-hour care bundle for high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundEnhancing surgical care pathways, including scaling-up care after surgery, seeks to deliver better patient-centered care and improve outcomes. However, the value associated with these pathways need to be investigated.
methodsWe analyzed the potential increase in efficiency of a new care pathway, a postoperative 48-hour care bundle designed to enhance care for high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, based on micro-costing and cost-effectiveness analyses. Data from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent a high-risk surgical bundle were compared with those who received the standard care regimen. The bundle included standardized risk communication using the ex-care model, implementing a high-risk patient discharge checklist from the recovery room to the ward, ensuring prompt nursing admission to the ward, increasing the frequency of vital sign monitoring in the surgical ward, conducting troponin measurements, and providing rapid access to medical support when needed. Costs were calculated individually throughout the postoperative period until discharge following the time-driven activity-based costing method. One-year survival rates were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in terms of life-year gain (LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsData from 130 and 188 patients in the bundled and non-bundled groups, respectively, were evaluated. The mean cost per patient of the high-risk surgical bundle was US$2114.63 while for the conventional care group it was US$1447.86. The Kaplan-Meier curve for one-year mortality showed that the groups differed significantly (p = 0.002). According to the model, the new care strategy incremented 0.12 life-year gained at an incremental cost of $150.12. The projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for one year of life was $1217.66.
conclusionOur results suggest that implementing a high-risk surgical bundle can enhance healthcare delivery efficiency, making it a valuable and cost-effective strategy for high-level testing to create a more sustainable healthcare system.
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.