Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 13, Number 6—June 2007

Perspective

Economic Evaluation and Catheter-related Bloodstream Infections

Kate Halton*†Comments to Author  and Nicholas Graves*†
Author affiliations: *The Centre for Healthcare Related Infection Surveillance and Prevention, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; †Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Main Article

Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for review

Inclusion criteria
  Had a full publication or manuscript for review
  Conducted a full economic evaluation which valued both costs and benefits of the intervention
  Based on a decision-analytic model
  Evaluated at least 1 infection-control intervention aimed at reducing incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection relative to a baseline scenario
  Evaluated the intervention with respect to short-term (<21 d), nontunneled, central venous catheters
  Based in an adult patient population
  Written in English
Exclusion criteria
  Cost-analysis studies only
  Did not use a comparator
  Based on a clinical trial (e.g., randomized controlled trial or pre-post intervention study) or a case study
  Did not contain an original analysis (e.g., editorials, reviews)
  Contained purely hypothetical data (e.g., methods articles)
  Did not provide full details on methods (e.g., letters)
  Based in a pediatric patient population
  Evaluated interventions aimed at long-term or tunneled or peripherally placed central venous catheters
  Evaluated therapeutic or diagnostic interventions, as opposed to preventive interventions

Main Article

TOP