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 characteristicEvaluations (n = 46), n (%)Evaluation reference numbers
Interventions
 Antibiotic therapies5 (11%)[22,23,24,25,26]
 Fluid therapies2 (4%)[27, 28]
 Procalcitonin algorithms3 (7%)[29,30,31]
 Immmunoglobulin therapies2 (4%)[32,33,34]
 EGDT or other sepsis protocol8 (17%)[35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
 Pathogen identification4 (9%)[44,45,46,47]
 Other2 (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 antibodies7 (15%)[65,66,67,68,69,70,71]
Type of evaluation
 Cost-minimisation2 (4%)[25, 44]
 Cost-effectiveness21 (46%)[22, 24, 26,27,28, 30, 32, 39, 45, 49, 52, 54, 59, 61, 64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]
 Cost-utility9 (20%)[29, 31, 33, 34, 40,41,42,43, 47, 48, 63]
 Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility14 (30%)[23, 35,36,37,38, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55,56,57,58, 60, 62]
Country
 USA15 (33%)[23, 28, 29, 35,36,37, 48, 51,52,53, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71]
 UK9 (20%)[25, 31, 33, 34, 41, 42, 47, 57, 58, 62, 63, 69]
 Canada2 (4%)[50, 59]
 France4 (9%)[27, 45, 56, 60]
 Spain4 (9%)[38, 44, 54, 67]
 Sweden1 (2%)[55]
 Greece1 (2%)[26]
 Italy1 (2%)[24]
 Netherlands1 (2%)[30]
 Germany2 (4%)[32, 61, 64]
 Russian Federation1 (2%)[22]
 Brazil2 (4%)[39, 40]
 Thailand1 (2%)[49]
 Multinational2 (4%)[43, 46]
Evaluation perspective1
 Hospital11 (24%)[24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 44, 45, 49, 52, 66, 68]
 Healthcare system18 (39%)[27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40,41,42,43, 46, 47, 50, 54, 57,58,59,60,61,62, 64, 71]
 Societal6 (13%)[23, 35, 51, 53, 65, 70]
 Not stated11 (24%)[22, 26, 31, 37, 39, 48, 55, 56, 63, 67, 69]
Time horizon2
 ICU or Hospital stay2 (4%)[30, 32]
 28 or 30 days3 (7%)[45, 52, 71]
 90 days1 (2%)[43]
 6 months1 (2%)[31]
 1 year1 (2%)[29]
 20 years2 (4%)[41, 42, 59]
 Lifetime17 (37%)[23, 24, 33,34,35,36, 38, 39, 47, 50, 51, 53, 56, 61, 63,64,65,66,67]
 Not stated or unclear19 (41%)[22, 25,26,27,28, 37, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 68,69,70]
Funder
 Pharmaceutical company13 (28%)[23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 46, 48, 51, 56, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68]
 Government or NFP14 (30%)[25, 26, 31, 33,34,35, 37, 38, 41,42,43, 45, 47, 50, 57, 58, 60]
 No funding1 (2%)[53]
 Not stated18 (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