ObjectivesThis study aimed to study the economic effect of five kinds of detection systems for nucleic acid, which were based on five kinds of working electrodes: gold electrode, glassy carbon electrode, carbon paste electrode, screen printing electrode, and indium-tin-oxide (ITO) glass electrode.MethodsThe cost of completing a single test was taken as the cost of economic analysis. The Youden index was used to represent the effect of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Meanwhile, the cost-utility analysis (CUA) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used for the economic analysis of the corresponding system.ResultsThe cost of five detection systems based on gold electrode, glass carbon electrode, carbon paste electrode, screen printing electrode, and ITO glass electrode was 3.70 yuan/unit, 4.20 yuan/unit, 5.25 yuan/unit, 33.98 yuan/unit and 5.01 yuan/unit, respectively. The Youden indexes of all five systems were 1. The cost effectiveness (C/E) were 3.70, 4.20, 5.25, 33.98, and 5.01, respectively. The cost utility (C/U) were 6.61, 6.89, 9.91, 62.93, and 9.45, respectively. The C'/E and C'/U of the gold electrode detection system were the minimum (2.96 and 5.29). Compared with the system applying the gold electrode, the system using the glassy carbon electrode had ΔC >0 and ∆E0 >0; When carbon paste electrode, screen printing electrode, and ITO glass electrode system were used, ∆C was >0 and ∆E0 was <0.ConclusionsFrom the perspective of CEA and CUA, the system using the gold electrode has the best economic effect. The sensitivity analysis proved the reliability of CEA and CUA results. According to the ICER, gold electrode or glassy carbon electrode can be used in clinical practice with the choice depending on the user.
ObjectiveTo analyze the cost and performance of five methods for detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), including PCR (method A), Carba NP test (method B), ultraviolet spectrophotometry (method C), modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM, method D), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP, method E).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched using the computer regarding literature on detection of CPE with the same or similar designs, same objectives, and independent results. The search was limited between May 2009 and May 2019. Data on the cost and detection performance of all five methods were extracted, and the four special indexes for laboratory tests, such as sensitivity, specificity, simplicity, and rapidity in the utility were quantified as specific values; subsequently, the cost-effective analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) in the detection economic analysis were used to conduct health economics evaluation of five detection methods for CPE.ResultsThe cost of methods A, B, C, D and E were 210.00 yuan, 22.00 yuan, 10.50 yuan, 6.00 yuan, and 60.00 yuan, respectively. The C/E of CEA for the above five methods were 210.00, 22.96, 10.66, 6.14, and 60.00, respectively. The C/U of CUA for the above five methods were 302.16, 32.13, 19.30, 11.13, and 80.00, respectively. The MAUT value of the above five methods were 42.56, 5.00, 2.54, 1.63, and 12.56, respectively.ConclusionIn terms of CEA, CUA, and MAUT, the method D was the highest in economic value, which usually can be used as a routine method for detecting CPE, but it needs a long procedure time; thus, the method E can be used for rapid detection when clinical severe infection occurred, which is superior in both cost-effectiveness and rapidity.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of different non-peros (NPO) times [( trial group: preoperative solid fast, 6 hours; fluid fast 2–3 hours) vs. (control group: preoperative solid fast, 12 hours; fluid fast 4–6 hours)] in elective general anesthesia patients in China.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCT of NPO time in elective general anesthesia patients were searched and retrieved through online databases (PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine database, China National Knowledge Internet, VIP, WanFang, SUMsearch, and Google search engine) and related literatures were reviewed up to April 25th, 2018. Two investigators independently screened literatures, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias assessment tools for RCT using the Version 5.1.0 of Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Then, Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 16 RCTs involving 2 722 elective general anesthesia patients (1 372 in the trial group and 1 350 in the control group) were included. The Meta-analysis showed that: the preoperative residual gastric volume [mean difference (MD)=–1.45 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) (–2.88, –0.01) mL, P=0.05], the incidence of preoperative hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR)=0.12, 95%CI (0.05, 0.28), P<0.000 01, the incidence of preoperative thirst [OR=0.15, 95%CI (0.11, 0.21), P<0.000 01], the incidence of preoperative hunger [OR=0.13, 95%CI (0.10, 0.18), P<0.000 01], the incidence of preoperative flustered tiredness [OR=0.11, 95%CI (0.07, 0.17), P<0.000 01], and the incidence of preoperative anxiety [OR=0.21, 95%CI (0.12, 0.37), P<0.000 1] in the trial group were significantly lower than those in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the intra-operative residual gastric volume between the two groups (P>0.05), and no intra-operative vomiting or aspiration took place in either group. The recovery time of exhaust and defecate of anus [MD=–8.71 hours, 95%CI (–11.43, –6.00) hours, P<0.000 01] in the trial group was significantly shorter than control group, and there was no statistically significant differences in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, or the postoperative thirsty and hungry between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with the control group, the trial group could decrease the incidences of preoperative hypoglycemia, thirst, hunger, flustered tiredness and anxiety, and shorten the recovery time of exhaust and defecate of anus for postoperative patients, without increasing incidences of intraoperative or postoperative adverse reactions. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by carrying out more large-scale samples and high-quality RCTs studies.