IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0286997.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the clinical and economic efficiency of four natural surfactants in treating infants with respiratory distress syndrome

Author

Listed:
  • Reyhane Izadi
  • Payam Shojaei
  • Arash Haqbin
  • Abbas Habibolahi
  • Parvaneh Sadeghi-Moghaddam

Abstract

Surfactant therapy has revolutionized the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) over the past few decades. Relying on a new method, the current research seeks to compare four common surfactants in the health market of Iran to determine the best surfactant according to the selected criteria. The research was a cross-sectional, retrospective study that used the data of 13,169 infants as recorded on the information system of the Iranian Ministry of Health. To rank the surfactants used, the following indicators were measured: re-dosing rate, average direct treatment cost, average length of stay, disease burden, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, survival at discharge, and medical referrals. The CRITIC (criteria importance through intercriteria correlation) method was used to determine the weight of the indicators, and MABAC (multi-attributive border approximation area comparison) was used to prioritize the surfactants. Based on the seven selected indicators in this research (re-dosing rate, average length of stay, direct medical cost per one prescription, medical referral rate, survival at discharge, disability-adjusted life years, number of newborns in need of invasive mechanical ventilation) and using multi-criteria analysis method, Alveofact was identified as the worst surfactant in infants with either more or less than 32 weeks’ gestation. So that some criteria were worse in Alveofact group infants than other groups; for example, in the comparison of the Alveofact group with the average of the total population, it was found that the survival rate at discharge was 57.14% versus 66.43%, and the rate of re-dosing was 1.63 versus 1.39. BLES (bovine lipid extract surfactant) was the best alternative for infants more than 32 weeks’ gestation, whereas Survanta was identified as best option for infants with less than 32 weeks’ gestation. Curosurf showed an average level of functionality in the ranking. This study advises the policy makers in the field of neonatal health to increase the market share of more effective surfactants based on this study and other similar studies. On the other hand, neonatal health care providers are also advised to prioritize the use of more effective surfactants if possible, depending on the clinical conditions and desired improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Reyhane Izadi & Payam Shojaei & Arash Haqbin & Abbas Habibolahi & Parvaneh Sadeghi-Moghaddam, 2023. "Comparing the clinical and economic efficiency of four natural surfactants in treating infants with respiratory distress syndrome," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286997
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286997
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0286997&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0286997?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Pamucar, Dragan & Ecer, Fatih & Chatterjee, Prasenjit, 2021. "An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0175922 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Gülay Demir & Milanko Damjanović & Boško Matović & Radoje Vujadinović, 2022. "Toward Sustainable Urban Mobility by Using Fuzzy-FUCOM and Fuzzy-CoCoSo Methods: The Case of the SUMP Podgorica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-27, April.
    3. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Torkayesh, Sajjad Ebadi & Lund, Peter D., 2022. "A comparative assessment of air quality across European countries using an integrated decision support model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Kumari, Alka & Singh, Manvendra Pratap, 2023. "A journey of social sustainability in organization during MDG & SDG period: A bibliometric analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Xue Han & Pratibha Rani, 2022. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Evaluate the barriers of blockchain technology adoption in sustainable supply chain management in the manufacturing sector using a novel Pythagorean fuzzy-CRITIC-CoCoSo approach," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 725-742, December.
    6. Miguel Ortíz-Barrios & Natalia Jaramillo-Rueda & Muhammet Gul & Melih Yucesan & Genett Jiménez-Delgado & Juan-José Alfaro-Saíz, 2023. "A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Assessing the Emergency Department Performance during the COVID-19 Outbreak," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-39, March.
    7. Tanrıverdi, Gökhan & Ecer, Fatih & Durak, Mehmet Şahin, 2022. "Exploring factors affecting airport selection during the COVID-19 pandemic from air cargo carriers’ perspective through the triangular fuzzy Dombi-Bonferroni BWM methodology," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    8. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    9. Samieinasab, Mina & Hamid, Mahdi & Rabbani, Masoud, 2022. "An integrated resilience engineering-lean management approach to performance assessment and improvement of clinical departments," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Tushar, Saifur Rahman & Alam, Md. Fahim Bin & Bari, A.B.M. Mainul & Karmaker, Chitra Lekha, 2023. "Assessing the challenges to medical waste management during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for the environmental sustainability in the emerging economies," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    11. Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Torkayesh, Sajjad Ebadi, 2021. "Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Su, Dan & Zhang, Lijun & Peng, Hua & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee, 2023. "Technical challenges of blockchain technology for sustainable manufacturing paradigm in Industry 4.0 era using a fuzzy decision support system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    13. Zhou, Weijie & Feng, Hanrui & Guo, Zeyu & Jia, Huating & Li, Yue & Luo, Xinyue & Ran, Siwei & Zhang, Hanming & Zhou, Ziyu & Yuan, Jiakai & Liu, Jiaxin & Sun, Shijie & Chen, Faan, 2024. "Machine learning embedded hybrid MCDM model to mitigate decision uncertainty in transport safety planning for OAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    14. Cui, Yongfeng & Liu, Wei & Rani, Pratibha & Alrasheedi, Melfi, 2021. "Internet of Things (IoT) adoption barriers for the circular economy using Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA-CoCoSo decision-making approach in the manufacturing sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    15. Engin Çakır & Gökhan Akel, 2022. "Prioritization of the Theme Park Satisfaction Criteria with Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Level Based Weight Assessment Model," Alphanumeric Journal, Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, vol. 10(2), pages 105-126, December.
    16. Yazdani, Morteza & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi & Chatterjee, Prasenjit & Fallahpour, Alireza & Montero-Simo, Maria Jose & Araque-Padilla, Rafael A. & Wong, Kuan Yew, 2022. "A fuzzy group decision-making model to measure resiliency in a food supply chain: A case study in Spain," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    17. Jaros{l}aw Wk{a}tr'obski & Aleksandra Bk{a}czkiewicz & Iga Rudawska, 2023. "A Strong Sustainability Paradigm Based Analytical Hierarchy Process (SSP-AHP) Method to Evaluate Sustainable Healthcare Systems," Papers 2306.00718, arXiv.org.
    18. Xiangqian Feng & Eryang Li & Jian Li & Cuiping Wei, 2024. "Critical influencing factors of employees’ green behavior: three-stage hybrid fuzzy DEMATEL–ISM–MICMAC approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17783-17811, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0286997. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.