Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care biomarker assessment for suspected myocardial infarction: The randomized assessment of treatment using panel assay of cardiac markers (RATPAC) trial

Academic Emergency Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 488-495

  Fitzgerald, Patrick ^a   Goodacre, Steve W ^a   Cross, Elizabeth ^a   Dixon, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CREATINE KINASE MB; MYOGLOBIN; TROPONIN I;

ARTICLE; ASSAY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EMERGENCY CARE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEART INFARCTION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; POINT OF CARE TESTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR;

ADULT; AGED; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CHEST PAIN; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CREATINE KINASE, MB FORM; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; MYOGLOBIN; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TROPONIN;

EID: 79956076616     PISSN: 10696563     EISSN: 15532712     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01068.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Goodacre S, Cross E, Arnold J, Angelini K, Capewell S, Nicholl J,. The health care burden of acute chest pain. Heart. 2005; 91: 229-30.
2. Price C,. Point of care testing. BMJ. 2001; 322: 1285-8.
3. Goodacre SW, Bradburn M, Cross E, Collinson PO, Gray A, Hall AS, on behalf of the RATPAC research team. The RATPAC Trial (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers): a randomised controlled trial of point-of-care cardiac markers in the emergency department. Heart. 2011; 97: 190-6.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance for the Management of Acute Chest Pain. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG95. Accessed Mar 4, 2011.
5. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al., Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force Report. Value Health. 2005; 8: 521-33. (Pubitemid 41727304)
6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: NICE, April 2004.
7. Goodacre S, Nicholl J, Dixon S, et al., Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care. BMJ. 2004; 328: 254-7. (Pubitemid 38168133)
8. Netten A, Curtis L, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2004. University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit. Available at: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/uc/uc2004.htm. Accessed Mar 4, 2011.
9. The National Archives. NHS Reference Costs 2004-2005. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-4133221. Accessed Mar 4, 2011.
10. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M,. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ Let. 2001; 10: 779-87. (Pubitemid 34041389)
11. Good P,. Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypothesis, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2005.
12. Rubin D,. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: J Wiley & Sons, 1987.
13. Goodacre S, Dixon S,. Is a chest pain observation unit likely to be cost-effective at my hospital? Extrapolation of data from a randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J. 2005; 418-22. (Pubitemid 40778993)