Skip to main content

Table 1 General characteristics of included economic evaluations

From: Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review

Evaluation characteristic

Evaluations (n = 46), n (%)

Evaluation reference numbers

Interventions

 Antibiotic therapies

5 (11%)

[22,23,24,25,26]

 Fluid therapies

2 (4%)

[27, 28]

 Procalcitonin algorithms

3 (7%)

[29,30,31]

 Immmunoglobulin therapies

2 (4%)

[32,33,34]

 EGDT or other sepsis protocol

8 (17%)

[35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]

 Pathogen identification

4 (9%)

[44,45,46,47]

 Other

2 (4%)

[48, 49]

Interventions no longer in clinical practice

 Drotrecogin alfa (activated)

13 (28%)

[50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]

 Monoclonal antibodies

7 (15%)

[65,66,67,68,69,70,71]

Type of evaluation

 Cost-minimisation

2 (4%)

[25, 44]

 Cost-effectiveness

21 (46%)

[22, 24, 26,27,28, 30, 32, 39, 45, 49, 52, 54, 59, 61, 64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]

 Cost-utility

9 (20%)

[29, 31, 33, 34, 40,41,42,43, 47, 48, 63]

 Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility

14 (30%)

[23, 35,36,37,38, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55,56,57,58, 60, 62]

Country

 USA

15 (33%)

[23, 28, 29, 35,36,37, 48, 51,52,53, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71]

 UK

9 (20%)

[25, 31, 33, 34, 41, 42, 47, 57, 58, 62, 63, 69]

 Canada

2 (4%)

[50, 59]

 France

4 (9%)

[27, 45, 56, 60]

 Spain

4 (9%)

[38, 44, 54, 67]

 Sweden

1 (2%)

[55]

 Greece

1 (2%)

[26]

 Italy

1 (2%)

[24]

 Netherlands

1 (2%)

[30]

 Germany

2 (4%)

[32, 61, 64]

 Russian Federation

1 (2%)

[22]

 Brazil

2 (4%)

[39, 40]

 Thailand

1 (2%)

[49]

 Multinational

2 (4%)

[43, 46]

Evaluation perspective1

 Hospital

11 (24%)

[24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 44, 45, 49, 52, 66, 68]

 Healthcare system

18 (39%)

[27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40,41,42,43, 46, 47, 50, 54, 57,58,59,60,61,62, 64, 71]

 Societal

6 (13%)

[23, 35, 51, 53, 65, 70]

 Not stated

11 (24%)

[22, 26, 31, 37, 39, 48, 55, 56, 63, 67, 69]

Time horizon2

 ICU or Hospital stay

2 (4%)

[30, 32]

 28 or 30 days

3 (7%)

[45, 52, 71]

 90 days

1 (2%)

[43]

 6 months

1 (2%)

[31]

 1 year

1 (2%)

[29]

 20 years

2 (4%)

[41, 42, 59]

 Lifetime

17 (37%)

[23, 24, 33,34,35,36, 38, 39, 47, 50, 51, 53, 56, 61, 63,64,65,66,67]

 Not stated or unclear

19 (41%)

[22, 25,26,27,28, 37, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 68,69,70]

Funder

 Pharmaceutical company

13 (28%)

[23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 46, 48, 51, 56, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68]

 Government or NFP

14 (30%)

[25, 26, 31, 33,34,35, 37, 38, 41,42,43, 45, 47, 50, 57, 58, 60]

 No funding

1 (2%)

[53]

 Not stated

18 (39%)

[22, 28, 29, 36, 39, 40, 44, 49, 54, 55, 59, 63, 65, 66, 69,70,71]

Reporting quality

 Excellent (≥ 85%)

12 (26%)

[23, 24, 30, 33,34,35,36, 38, 41, 42, 47, 51, 53, 61, 64]

 Very good (70 to < 85%)

18 (39%)

[25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 40, 43, 50, 52, 54, 57,58,59,60, 62, 63, 67, 68]

 Good (55 to < 70%)

11 (24%)

[22, 39, 44, 45, 48, 49, 55, 56, 65, 70, 71]

 Poor (< 55%)

5 (11%)

[26, 27, 46, 66, 69]

  1. EGDT early goal-directed therapy, ICU intensive care unit, NFP not for profit, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
  2. 1Where studies conducted analyses from more than one perspective, the broader perspective has been reported in the table
  3. 2Where studies conducted more than one analysis with different time horizons, the latest time horizon has been reported in the table
Back to article page

Journal of Intensive Care

ISSN: 2052-0492