Variations in analytical methodology for estimating costs of hospital-acquired infections: A systematic review

Haruhisa Fukuda, J. Lee, Y. Imanaka

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Quantifying the additional costs of hospital-acquired infections (COHAI) is essential for developing cost-effective infection control measures. The methodological approaches to estimate these costs include case reviews, matched comparisons and regression analyses. The choice of cost estimation methodologies can affect the accuracy of the resulting estimates, however, with regression analyses generally able to avoid the bias pitfalls of the other methods. The objective of this study was to elucidate the distributions and trends in cost estimation methodologies in published studies that have produced COHAI estimates. We conducted systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications that produced cost estimates attributable to hospital-acquired infection in MEDLINE from 1980 to 2006. Shifts in methodologies at 10-year intervals were analysed using Fisher's exact test. The most frequent method of COHAI estimation methodology was multiple matched comparisons (59.6%), followed by regression models (25.8%), and case reviews (7.9%). There were significant increases in studies that used regression models and decreases in matched comparisons through the 1980s, 1990s and post-2000 (P = 0.033). Whereas regression analyses have become more frequently used for COHAI estimations in recent years, matched comparisons are still used in more than half of COHAI estimation studies. Researchers need to be more discerning in the selection of methodologies for their analyses, and comparative analyses are needed to identify more accurate estimation methods. This review provides a resource for analysts to overview the distribution, trends, advantages and pitfalls of the various existing COHAI estimation methodologies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-105
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Hospital Infection
Volume77
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2011

Fingerprint

Cross Infection
Costs and Cost Analysis
Regression Analysis
Infection Control
MEDLINE
Publications
Research Personnel

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Variations in analytical methodology for estimating costs of hospital-acquired infections : A systematic review. / Fukuda, Haruhisa; Lee, J.; Imanaka, Y.

In: Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 77, No. 2, 01.02.2011, p. 93-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{7f3657996cb5486e9c90836f9cc30f30,
title = "Variations in analytical methodology for estimating costs of hospital-acquired infections: A systematic review",
abstract = "Quantifying the additional costs of hospital-acquired infections (COHAI) is essential for developing cost-effective infection control measures. The methodological approaches to estimate these costs include case reviews, matched comparisons and regression analyses. The choice of cost estimation methodologies can affect the accuracy of the resulting estimates, however, with regression analyses generally able to avoid the bias pitfalls of the other methods. The objective of this study was to elucidate the distributions and trends in cost estimation methodologies in published studies that have produced COHAI estimates. We conducted systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications that produced cost estimates attributable to hospital-acquired infection in MEDLINE from 1980 to 2006. Shifts in methodologies at 10-year intervals were analysed using Fisher's exact test. The most frequent method of COHAI estimation methodology was multiple matched comparisons (59.6{\%}), followed by regression models (25.8{\%}), and case reviews (7.9{\%}). There were significant increases in studies that used regression models and decreases in matched comparisons through the 1980s, 1990s and post-2000 (P = 0.033). Whereas regression analyses have become more frequently used for COHAI estimations in recent years, matched comparisons are still used in more than half of COHAI estimation studies. Researchers need to be more discerning in the selection of methodologies for their analyses, and comparative analyses are needed to identify more accurate estimation methods. This review provides a resource for analysts to overview the distribution, trends, advantages and pitfalls of the various existing COHAI estimation methodologies.",
author = "Haruhisa Fukuda and J. Lee and Y. Imanaka",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jhin.2010.10.006",
language = "English",
volume = "77",
pages = "93--105",
journal = "Journal of Hospital Infection",
issn = "0195-6701",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations in analytical methodology for estimating costs of hospital-acquired infections

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Fukuda, Haruhisa

AU - Lee, J.

AU - Imanaka, Y.

PY - 2011/2/1

Y1 - 2011/2/1

N2 - Quantifying the additional costs of hospital-acquired infections (COHAI) is essential for developing cost-effective infection control measures. The methodological approaches to estimate these costs include case reviews, matched comparisons and regression analyses. The choice of cost estimation methodologies can affect the accuracy of the resulting estimates, however, with regression analyses generally able to avoid the bias pitfalls of the other methods. The objective of this study was to elucidate the distributions and trends in cost estimation methodologies in published studies that have produced COHAI estimates. We conducted systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications that produced cost estimates attributable to hospital-acquired infection in MEDLINE from 1980 to 2006. Shifts in methodologies at 10-year intervals were analysed using Fisher's exact test. The most frequent method of COHAI estimation methodology was multiple matched comparisons (59.6%), followed by regression models (25.8%), and case reviews (7.9%). There were significant increases in studies that used regression models and decreases in matched comparisons through the 1980s, 1990s and post-2000 (P = 0.033). Whereas regression analyses have become more frequently used for COHAI estimations in recent years, matched comparisons are still used in more than half of COHAI estimation studies. Researchers need to be more discerning in the selection of methodologies for their analyses, and comparative analyses are needed to identify more accurate estimation methods. This review provides a resource for analysts to overview the distribution, trends, advantages and pitfalls of the various existing COHAI estimation methodologies.

AB - Quantifying the additional costs of hospital-acquired infections (COHAI) is essential for developing cost-effective infection control measures. The methodological approaches to estimate these costs include case reviews, matched comparisons and regression analyses. The choice of cost estimation methodologies can affect the accuracy of the resulting estimates, however, with regression analyses generally able to avoid the bias pitfalls of the other methods. The objective of this study was to elucidate the distributions and trends in cost estimation methodologies in published studies that have produced COHAI estimates. We conducted systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications that produced cost estimates attributable to hospital-acquired infection in MEDLINE from 1980 to 2006. Shifts in methodologies at 10-year intervals were analysed using Fisher's exact test. The most frequent method of COHAI estimation methodology was multiple matched comparisons (59.6%), followed by regression models (25.8%), and case reviews (7.9%). There were significant increases in studies that used regression models and decreases in matched comparisons through the 1980s, 1990s and post-2000 (P = 0.033). Whereas regression analyses have become more frequently used for COHAI estimations in recent years, matched comparisons are still used in more than half of COHAI estimation studies. Researchers need to be more discerning in the selection of methodologies for their analyses, and comparative analyses are needed to identify more accurate estimation methods. This review provides a resource for analysts to overview the distribution, trends, advantages and pitfalls of the various existing COHAI estimation methodologies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78951485709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78951485709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.10.006

DO - 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.10.006

M3 - Review article

C2 - 21145131

AN - SCOPUS:78951485709

VL - 77

SP - 93

EP - 105

JO - Journal of Hospital Infection

JF - Journal of Hospital Infection

SN - 0195-6701

IS - 2

ER -