ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Which surfactant is cost-effective in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome?
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome (NRDS) is the most common cause of hospitalization and preterm birth and one of the leading causes of death in newborns. The main intervention is surfactant therapy. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of Calfactant compared to Beractant and Poractant alfa in treating preterm infants with RDS in Iran. A two-state decision tree model was developed based on RDS disease pathways, assuming that neonates had been admitted to the NICU using one of the aforementioned surfactants. Efficacy as life years gained (LYG) and transition probabilities between states were extracted from international RCTs. Costs are presented in US dollars, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is presented from the Iranian healthcare system perspective. To evaluate the model’s robustness against data uncertainties, the study conducted both deterministic (one-way and two-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, including a Monte Carlo simulation, using varied input ranges and distributional modeling, with results visualized through tornado plots and scatter plots. From the Iranian healthcare system perspective, in RDS preterm neonates, Calfactant was cost-effective versus Beractant. However, it is not cost-effective compared to Poractant alfa.
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.