Protocol for an economic evaluation alongside the Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (E-REVISE) trial
Bibliographic record
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 daily compared with no pantoprazole to prevent upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed among invasively ventilated patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: rosions (REVISE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03374800). The primary outcome is the incremental cost per clinically important upper GI bleed prevented. The base-case analysis will focus on the entire international cohort of 4821 REVISE patients. The analysis will be conducted from a healthcare payer perspective over a time horizon of ICU admission to hospital discharge or death. To facilitate comparisons across countries given the international scope of the REVISE trial, costs will be presented in United States dollars. The study protocol was developed following the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by each participating institution; this economic evaluation was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. 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 intensive care unit quality councils and healthcare organisations, and open-access publications. Patient and family partners will co-create lay language summaries for traditional and social media to help inform all interest groups.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.082 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.181 | 0.045 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".