78 Cost-effectiveness of intermittent vs. continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in infants hospitalized with stabilized bronchiolitis: A multi-centre clinical trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Pulse oximetry is a non-invasive technology that is integral to the supportive care of hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis. A multi-centre, randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of intermittent vs. continuous pulse oximetry found similar hospital length of stay and safety outcomes, and greater nursing satisfaction with intermittent monitoring. Objectives To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent vs. continuous pulse oximetry in hospitalized infants with stabilized bronchiolitis. Design/Methods Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with a randomized trial (October 2016 to May 2019) using a probabilistic analysis. Infants (n=229) 4 weeks to 24 months hospitalized with bronchiolitis, with or without supplemental oxygen, after stabilization were randomized at six Ontario hospitals (community and children's) to intermittent (every 4 hours) vs. continuous pulse oximetry using an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher. The main outcome measure for the economic evaluation was cost and incremental costs. The clinical effect measure was length of hospital stay in hours. The cost-effective analysis adopted a societal and health care system perspective and a time horizon from hospitalization to 15 days post-discharge. Patient level direct health care costs and indirect costs were included. Costs, health resource use and clinical outcomes were obtained from trial data. Publicly available pricing resources were used to supplement costs. Ranges for sensitivity analysis were based on 95% confidence intervals of the trial data. All costs were reported in 2020 Canadian dollars. This study was funded by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Results Trial data from 229 infants across six hospitals was included. Mean societal costs per patient were lower in the intermittent monitoring group: $6528 (95% CI: $3201, $12058) in the intermittent and $6815 (95% CI: $1454, $26485) in the continuous group with a mean incremental cost of -$287 (95% CI -$20084, $7842). Mean health care system costs per patient were $3992 (95% CI -$1139, $9224) in the intermittent and $4604 (95% CI -$317, $24126) in the continuous group (incremental cost -$613 (95% CI -$20564, $7089). The mean effect measure, length of stay, was also similar between the two groups: 36.3 hours in the intermittent group and 40.2 hours in the continuous group. One-way sensitivity analyses on all variables revealed that the findings were robust and the incremental costs were not sensitive to the uncertainty within the defined ranges. Conclusion In a prospective economic evaluation conducted with a clinical trial, we found that intermittent monitoring was less expensive than continuous monitoring, considering societal and health care costs. These findings support recommendations to use intermittent pulse oximetry monitoring in hospitalized infants with stabilized bronchiolitis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».