{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,24]],"date-time":"2026-06-24T20:01:05Z","timestamp":1782331265347,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":21,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"7163","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]],"date-time":"1998-10-03T00:00:00Z","timestamp":907372800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/company\/legal-information\/terms-conditions\/legal-information\/tdm-licencepolicy"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMJ"],"accepted":{"date-parts":[[1998,6,16]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Objective:<\/jats:bold>\n                    To compare the resource implications and short term outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and conventional management for term babies with severe respiratory failure.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Design:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Cost effectiveness evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Setting:<\/jats:bold>\n                    55 approved recruiting hospitals in the United Kingdom. These hospitals provided conventional management, but infants randomised to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were transferred to one of five specialist centres.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Subjects:<\/jats:bold>\n                    185 mature newborn infants (gestational age at birth &gt;35 weeks, birth weight &gt;2 kg) with severe respiratory failure (oxygenation index &gt;40) recruited between 1993 and 1995. The commonest diagnoses were persistent pulmonary hypertension due to meconium aspiration, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, isolated persistent fetal circulation, sepsis, and idiopathic respiratory distress syndrome.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Main outcome measure:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Cost effectiveness based on survival at 1 year of age without severe disability.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Results:<\/jats:bold>\n                    63 (68%) of the 93 infants randomised to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survived to 1 year compared with 38 (41%) of the 92 infants who received conventional management. Of those that survived, one infant in each arm was lost to follow up and the proportion with disability at 1 year was similar in the two arms of the trial. One child in each arm had severe disability. The estimated additional cost of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation per additional surviving infant without severe disability was \u00a351 222 and the cost per surviving infant with no disability was \u00a375 327.\n                  <\/jats:p>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    <jats:bold>Conclusions:<\/jats:bold>\n                    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for term neonates with severe respiratory failure would increase overall survival without disability. Although the policy will increase costs of neonatal health care, it is likely to be as cost effective as other life extending technologies.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,10,31]],"date-time":"2011-10-31T17:47:49Z","timestamp":1320083269000},"page":"911-916","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":61,"title":["Economic evaluation and randomised controlled trial of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: UK collaborative trialCommentary: Concurrent economic evaluations are rare but should be standard practice"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"317","author":[{"given":"Tracy E","family":"Roberts","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Tom","family":"Jefferson","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1163","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.301.6761.1163-c","article-title":"Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation","volume":"301","author":"Sosnowski","year":"1990","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0140-6736(91)90494-A"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(96)04100-1"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E1","DOI":"10.1542\/peds.101.4.e1","article-title":"UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: follow up to one year of age.","volume":"101","year":"1998","journal-title":"Pediatrics"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"80","DOI":"10.1017\/S0266462300009417","article-title":"A cost-effectiveness analysis of neonatal ECMO using existing evidence.","volume":"12","author":"Howard","year":"1996","journal-title":"Int J Technol Assess Health Care"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"265","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.4730040403","article-title":"Costing neonatal care alongside the collaborative ECMO trial: how much primary research is required?","volume":"4","author":"Howard","year":"1995","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.7","unstructured":"Tarnow-Mordi W Normand C Mugford M Malek M Halliday H Clinical and economic evaluation of surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Final report to the MRC Dundee: University of Dundee 1997."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.8","unstructured":"The ECSURF (Economic Evaluation of Surfactant) Collaborative Study Group Limited comparability of classification of levels of neonatal care in UK neonatal units Arch Dis Child (in press)."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"167","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<167::AID-HEC192>3.0.CO;2-N","article-title":"Costing neonatal care alongside the ECMO trial","volume":"5","author":"Hallam","year":"1996","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.10","unstructured":"Roberts T, the ECMO Economics Working Group Economic evaluation alongside the UK collaborative ECMO trial: full report Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit 1998(NPEU working paper.)"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.11","first-page":"16","article-title":"The economics of neonatal surfactant therapy.","volume":"57","author":"Tarnow-Mordi","year":"1992","journal-title":"MRC News"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.12","unstructured":"Working Group on Specialist Medical Training Hospital doctors: training for the future London: Department of Health 1993."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.13","first-page":"127","article-title":"Cost of neonatal care across a regional health authority.","volume":"14","author":"Fordham","year":"1992","journal-title":"J Public Health Med"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.14","unstructured":"Netten A Dennett J Unit costs of community care 1995 Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit 1995."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"361","DOI":"10.1007\/BF01325418","article-title":"The cost of neonatal care: reviewing the evidence.","volume":"40","author":"Mugford","year":"1995","journal-title":"Soc Prev Med"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.16","first-page":"37","article-title":"Quick and clean: authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting.","volume":"27","author":"Stevens","year":"1995","journal-title":"Health Trends"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.17","unstructured":"Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine Eleventh report on professions allied to medicine London: HMSO 1994."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.18","unstructured":"Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration Twenty third report London: HMSO 1994."},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-199203000-00005"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.280.4.375"},{"key":"2025122308261408000_317.7163.911.21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"383","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.4730040504","article-title":"Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary? A survey of current editorial practice.","volume":"4","author":"Jefferson","year":"1995","journal-title":"Health Economics"}],"container-title":["BMJ"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/data.bmj.org\/tdm\/10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,23]],"date-time":"2025-12-23T16:26:25Z","timestamp":1766507185000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]},"references-count":21,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7163","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.317.7163.911","relation":{},"ISSN":["0959-8138","1468-5833"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0959-8138","type":"print"},{"value":"1468-5833","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1998,10,3]]}}}