Protocol for an Economic Evaluation Alongside the Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (E-REVISE) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Economic evaluations in healthcare can guide practice and inform policy. The objective of this paper is to present the protocol for a health economic evaluation comparing the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatment using pantoprazole 40 mg IV daily compared to no pantoprazole to prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed among invasively ventilated patients. Methods and analysis This is an economic evaluation conducted alongside the R e- E valuating the I nhibition of S tress E rosions trial. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per clinically-important upper GI bleed prevented. Secondary outcomes include the incremental cost of a patient-important upper GI bleed prevented. We will explore the incremental cost per secondary trial outcome (e.g., ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important GI bleeding); and incremental cost per life gained. The analysis will be conducted from a Canadian public healthcare payer’s perspective over a time horizon of ICU admission to hospital discharge or death. The study protocol was developed following good practice guidelines of Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA) and the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board and at each participating institution; this economic evaluation is currently under review for ethics approval. Given widespread daily use of proton pump inhibitors for critically ill patients, the results of this economic evaluation will be of high relevance to patients, family members, physicians, pharmacists, policymakers and guideline developers. Integrated knowledge translation will involve periodic progress reports to collaborators. End-of-study knowledge translation will include rounds, videoconferences, abstracts and slide-decks for ICU quality councils and healthcare organizations, and open-access publications. Patient and Family Partners will co-create lay language summaries for traditional and social media to help inform all stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".