34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Complex wounds present a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, costing billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The prevalence of complex wounds is a significant patient and societal healthcare concern and cost-effective wound care management remains unclear. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness of interventions for complex wound care through a systematic review of the evidence base.

          Methods

          We searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for cost-effectiveness studies that examined adults treated for complex wounds. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond 10-item methodological quality tool. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported, or, if not reported, calculated and converted to United States Dollars for the year 2013.

          Results

          Overall, 59 cost-effectiveness analyses were included; 71% (42 out of 59) of the included studies scored 8 or more points on the Drummond 10-item checklist tool. Based on these, 22 interventions were found to be more effective and less costly (i.e., dominant) compared to the study comparators: 9 for diabetic ulcers, 8 for venous ulcers, 3 for pressure ulcers, 1 for mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers, and 1 for mixed complex wound types.

          Conclusions

          Our results can be used by decision-makers in maximizing the deployment of clinically effective and resource efficient wound care interventions. Our analysis also highlights specific treatments that are not cost-effective, thereby indicating areas of resource savings.

          Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.

          Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Definitions and guidelines for assessment of wounds and evaluation of healing.

              Chronic wounds represent a worldwide problem. For laboratory and clinical research to adequately address this problem, a common language needs to exist. This language should include a system of wound classification, a lexicon of wound descriptors, and a description of the processes that are likely to affect wound healing and would healing end points. The report that follows defines wound, acute wound, chronic wound, healing and forms of healing, wound assessment, wound extent, wound burden, and wound severity. The utility of these definitions is demonstrated as they relate to the healing of a skin wound, but these definitions are broadly applicable to all wounds.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                triccoa@smh.ca
                cogoe@smh.ca
                isaranuwatcw@smh.ca
                khanp@smh.ca
                geetha.sanmugalingham@alumni.utoronto.ca
                antonyj@smh.ca
                hochj@smh.ca
                sharon.straus@utoronto.ca
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                22 April 2015
                22 April 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 90
                Affiliations
                [ ]Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8 Canada
                [ ]Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7 Canada
                [ ]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7 Canada
                [ ]Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Suite RFE 3-805, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4 Canada
                Article
                326
                10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3
                4405871
                25899057
                dcdc063e-cc5f-4cab-ac38-66fbe8fc60e1
                © Tricco et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 16 October 2014
                : 13 March 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                complex wound,cost-benefit analysis,cost-effectiveness analysis,research design,skin ulcer,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article