{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020366598778004074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.669683257918552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding health economic analysis in critical care: insights from recent randomized controlled trials

Purpose of reviewThe article reviews the methods of health economic analysis (HEA) in clinical trials of critically ill patients. Emphasis is placed on the usefulness of HEA in the context of positive and ‘no effect’ studies, with recent examples. Recent findingsThe need to control costs and promote effective spending in caring for the critically ill has garnered considerable attention due to the high cost of critical illness. Many clinical trials focus on short-term mortality, ignoring costs and quality of life, and fail to change clinical practice or promote efficient use of resources. Incorporating HEA into clinical trials is a possible solution. Such studies have shown some interventions, although expensive, provide good value, whereas others should be withdrawn from clinical practice. Incorporating HEA into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) requires careful attention to collect all relevant costs. Decision trees, modeling assumptions and methods for collecting costs and measuring outcomes should be planned and published beforehand to minimize bias. SummaryCosts and cost-effectiveness are potentially useful outcomes in RCTs of critically ill patients. Future RCTs should incorporate parallel HEA to provide both economic outcomes, which are important to the community, alongside patient-centered outcomes, which are important to individuals.