ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026
A cost-effectiveness analysis of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the 24-months cost-effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) versus standard care in mechanically ventilated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Design: Within‑trial cost‑effectiveness analysis using linked administrative healthcare datasets. Setting: Nineteen Australian ICUs participating in the Australian Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in the ICU (SuDDICU Australia) cluster crossover randomised trial (2018-2021). Participants: 2845 adult patients enrolled from New South Wales, Australia with 24‑month follow‑up (SDD, n=1252; standard care, n=1593). Interventions: SDD plus standard care versus standard care alone. Main Outcome measures: All‑cause mortality at 24 months; life‑years gained; healthcare resource use; healthcare costs (Australian dollars [A$]) and cost-effectiveness expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per life-year gained); subgroup analyses in acute brain injuries/conditions patients. Results: At 24 months, mortality (SDD: 521/1252 [41.6%] vs standard care: [697/1593] 43.8%; p=.25), and survival probabilities (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.83-1.04; p=.22) did not differ between groups. SDD was associated with shorter median mechanical ventilation duration (4.0 vs 4.3 days) and lower mean non-SDD antibiotics use (11.7 vs 12.9) versus standard care. Mean per-patient healthcare costs were higher with SDD (A$294,529 vs A$268,493), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$669,726 per life-year gained and ∼1% probability of SDD being cost-effectiveness at the Australian willingness-to-pay threshold. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was lower in traumatic brain injury patients (A$169,887 per life-year gained). Conclusion: In mechanically ventilated ICU patients, SDD use didn't improve 24-month survival and healthcare costs were higher, resulting in low probability of cost-effectiveness within Australian healthcare context.
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.