ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Standardized Clinical Nutrition Diagnosis and Treatment Pathway in Patients with Pulmonary Infection.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retractions of Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- Retracted: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Standardized Clinical Nutrition Diagnosis and Treatment Pathway in Patients with Pulmonary Infection.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: From the perspective of economics, this study discusses the value of establishing a standardized clinical nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection and provides a reference for optimizing the diagnosis and treatment pathway of pulmonary infection. Methods: The patients who received the nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway intervention in 2017 were counted as the routine group and were subdivided into the conventional intervention group (C1) and conventional control group (C2) according to whether the standardized nutrition therapy was applied or not. The patients who received the nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway intervention in 2020 were counted as the experimental group and were subdivided into the experimental intervention group (T1) and the experimental control group (T2) according to whether standardized intervention was applied or not. The total hospitalization expenses, average daily hospitalization cost, nutrition support expenses, plasma albumin before and after nutrition support, readmission, and other indicators of all patients were recorded and compared. The cost-effectiveness ratio (CER), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and cost-effectiveness threshold for cost-effectiveness analysis were adopted. Results: Compared with the C2 group, the C1 group had higher total hospitalization expenses, average daily hospitalization expenses, nutritional support expenses, and plasma albumin improvement rate and lower readmission rate ( Conclusion: For the patients with pulmonary infection, whether the improvement rate of plasma albumin or the readmission rate is used as the impact index, the standardized nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway in 2020 is more economical than the nonstandardized nutrition diagnosis and treatment pathway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.