ArticleJornal brasileiro de nefrologia
Cost elements to be considered in estimates for microcosting studies in peritoneal dialysis (PD) therapy in Latin America.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe main tools for making clinical decisions based on efficient use of resources are economic evaluation studies that allow the assessment of both the costs and benefits of different therapeutics, with appropriate guidelines for preparing reports. This study aimed to develop a checklist of consumable cost elements to be considered in estimates for micro-costing studies in peritoneal dialysis (PD).
methodsFour stages were conducted, followed by data analysis and interpretation. Three stages were carried out to develop the direct cost elements questionnaire: 1st - designing the first version of the checklist; 2nd - evaluating and expanding it using the Delphi method; 3rd - conducting two expert panels; and 4th - applying the questionnaire to professionals from 18 Latin American countries. Inclusion criteria: professionals with at least one year of clinical and/or administrative experience in PD. A discrete probability distribution adjustment was performed. Distribution lots were considered according to the category of cost elements for each country. The maximum likelihood estimation method was applied, and the statistical classification of the adjustments was assessed using the Akaike Information Criterion.
resultsA total of 596 questionnaires, comprising seven dimensions and 41 elements, were validated. From the results of each batch, it was possible to segment the elements into three choice options, with the probability of evaluating an element as very important, thus allowing for the classification of the cost elements.
conclusionThe checklist favors more equitable economic dimensioning in comparative studies, making it possible to compare economic values in PD across countries, while considering the appropriate cost elements.
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.