ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2026
Cost-effectiveness of the special care unit for persons with dementia.
Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the patient-centered special care unit for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (SCU-B) in the Respectful Caring for the Agitated Elderly (RECage) study.
methodsA health-economic evaluation was performed alongside a controlled European multicenter three-year longitudinal cohort study enrolling 508 participants in a non-SCU-B cohort and SCU-B cohort. Health service resource use, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained were assessed.
resultsTotal QALYs were lower (-0.13; bootstrap-interval -0.23 to -0.02) and total costs were higher (€24,960; bootstrap-interval 14,870 to 35,090) in the SCU-B cohort. Base case and sensitivity analyses indicated the SCU-B was likely not cost-effective. DISCUSSION: Widespread implementation as well as disinvestment of SCU-B cannot be recommended, given the uncertainty of the study results. We recommend a randomized study stratified by (local/county) region for conclusive evidence.
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.