SynthesisCritical care explorations2025
Health Economic Evaluations in Intensive Care: An Updated Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Willingness and Ability to Pay for Critical Care Treatment for Non-COVID Illness during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Study in a Tertiary Care Centre in India.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Risk stratification and determinant identification of high-need, high-cost ICU patients using machine learning: a large-scale retrospective study from a multi-specialty ICU in a tertiary hospital.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pantoprazole to Prevent Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness in Critical Care: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evaluations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIntensive care is a critical but resource-intensive component of healthcare. Health economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), offer valuable insights for decision-making by weighing the costs and benefits of various healthcare interventions. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing health economic evaluations within intensive care and identify areas for future research. DATA SOURCES: We searched six academic databases to identify full health economic evaluations of ICU interventions published between 1993 and 2023. Databases included: Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase, and evidence based medicine (EBM) Reviews [Health Technology Assessments and National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database]), EBSCO (CINAHL and EconLit), and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Health economic evaluations of interventions for adult patients in the ICU were included. Economic evaluations include CEAs, cost-utility, cost-benefit, and cost-minimization analyses, while pediatric, animal and weaning center studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 219 relevant studies published between 1993 and 2023, with a significant rise in publications over the last decade. Most studies (97%) had good to excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (more effective and less expensive) to $753,874 per life saved. ICERs for both cost per quality-adjusted life-years and cost per life-year gained ranged from dominant to dominated (more costly and less effective). Three studies (1%) were published in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and 58% of studies were modeling studies.
conclusionsDespite the importance of economic evidence in healthcare decision-making, there is a relative scarcity of cost-effectiveness studies in intensive care compared with other medical fields. Available economic evaluations in intensive care are characterized by significant heterogeneity. The wide range of ICERs for life saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years reflects the diversity of ICU patients, interventions, and evaluation methods. Future research in LMICs and increasing trial-based research is recommended.
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.