IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0286997.html

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. repec:plo:pone00:0175922 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    3. 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).
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Jason Tuang-tuang & Samantha Shane Evangelista & Eliza Espinosa & Lanndon Ocampo, 2025. "CoCoSort: a multiple criteria sorting method for managing the protection of marine resources," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    6. Hae-Yeol Kang & Seung Taek Chae & Eun-Sung Chung, 2023. "Quantifying Medium-Sized City Flood Vulnerability Due to Climate Change Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: Case of Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Garima Bisht & A. K. Pal, 2025. "A novel 4D hybrid decision-making approach and its applications in supplier selection problem," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 62(3), pages 1517-1547, September.
    8. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    11. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    14. Valipour Malakshah, Mohammad Reza & Amini, Zahra, 2026. "Intersection importance assessment for an operationally resilient urban traffic network: A multi-criteria decision-making-based framework," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 266(PA).
    15. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Deb, Madhujit & Debbarma, Bishop & Majumder, Arindam & Banerjee, Rahul, 2016. "Performance –emission optimization of a diesel-hydrogen dual fuel operation: A NSGA II coupled TOPSIS MADM approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 281-290.
    19. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    20. Wabukala, Benard M. & Bergland, Olvar & Mukisa, Nicholas & Adaramola, Muyiwa S. & Watundu, Susan & Orobia, Laura A. & Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus, 2024. "Electricity security in Uganda: Measurement and policy priorities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).

    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.