{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04345088161209068, 'fraction_numerical': 0.045969773299748114, 'mean_word_length': 4.82051282051282, '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}}
A review of costing methodologies in critical care studies.

Clinical decision making in critical care has traditionally been based on clinical outcome measures such as mortality and morbidity. Over the past few decades, however, increasing competition in the health care marketplace has made it necessary to consider costs when making clinical and managerial decisions in critical care. Sophisticated costing methodologies have been developed to aid this decision-making process. We performed a narrative review of published costing studies in critical care during the past 6 years. A total of 282 articles were found, of which 68 met our search criteria. They involved a mean of 508 patients (range, 20-13,907). A total of 92.6% of the studies (63 of 68) used traditional cost analysis, whereas the remaining 7.4% (5 of 68) used cost-effectiveness analysis. None (0 of 68) used cost-benefit analysis or cost-utility analysis. A total of 36.7% (25 of 68) used hospital charges as a surrogate for actual costs. Of the 43 articles that actually counted costs, 37.2% (16 of 43) counted physician costs, 27.9% (12 of 43) counted facility costs, 34.9% (15 of 43) counted nursing costs, 9.3% (4 of 43) counted societal costs, and 90.7% (39 of 43) counted laboratory, equipment, and pharmacy costs. Our conclusion is that despite considerable progress in costing methodologies, critical care studies have not adequately implemented these techniques. Given the importance of financial implications in medicine, it would be prudent for critical care studies to use these more advanced techniques.