Skip to main content

Table 10 Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) outcomes for pressure ulcers (n = 14)

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

CEA (Original year of values) Treatment vs. Comparator ICER summary/estimate [2013 US$] Unit of effectiveness Incremental cost [2013 US$] Incremental effectiveness
Branom 2001 (2000) [64] Constant Force Technology mattress vs. low-air-loss mattress Dominant Percent additional reduction in wound volume per week −1,435 0.04
Burgos 2000 (1998) [65] Collagenase ointment vs. hydrocolloid (Varihesive) dressing 1,278 Percent additional reduction of ulcer area 20,825 16.3
Chang 1998 (1997) [66] Hydrocolloid (DuoDERM CGF) vs. saline gauze 3 Percent additional reduction of ulcer area 121 43
Chuangsu-wanich 2011 (2010) [67] Silver mesh dressing vs. silver sulfadiazine cream Dominant Increase in healing rate −1,695 11.89
Ferrell 1995 (1992) [68] Low-air-loss bed vs. conventional foam mattress 58a Ulcer-free day gained Not reported Not reported
Foglia 2012 (2010) [69] Advanced dressings vs. simple dressings Dominanta Percent additional reduction of ulcer area −132 6
Graumlich 2003 (2001) [70] Collagen (Medifil) vs. hydrocolloid (DuoDERM) 63,147a Additional wound healed 632 0.01
Muller 2001 (1998) [71] Collagenase-containing ointment (Novuxol) vs. hydrocolloid (DuoDERM) dressing Dominanta Additional wound healed −149 0.281
Narayanan 2005b (2004) [72] Initial wound stage 1: BCT (balsam Peru + hydrogenated castor oil + trypsin ointment) only vs. BCT + Others (BCT plus Other treatments) Dominant Additional wound healed −5 0.106
Narayanan 2005b (2004) [72] Initial wound stage 1: BCT + Others vs. Others Dominant Additional wound healed −10 0.263
Narayanan 2005b (2004) [72] Initial wound stage 2: BCT only vs. Others Dominant Additional wound healed −6 0.16
Narayanan 2005b (2004) [72] Initial wound stage 2: BCT only vs. BCT + Others Dominant Additional wound healed −7 0.159
Narayanan 2005b (2004) [72] Initial wound stage 2: BCT + Others vs. Others 226,208 Additional wound healed 226 0.001
Payne 2009 (2007) [73] Polyurethane foam dressing (Allevyn Thin) vs. saline gauze Dominant Additional wound healed −564 0.181
Robson 2000b (1999) [74] Sequential GM-CSF and bFGF vs. bFGF only Dominant Percent additional reduction of ulcer volume 1,357 −0.07
Robson 2000b (1999) [74] Sequential GM-CSF and bFGF vs. GM-CSF only Dominant Percent additional reduction of ulcer volume −848 1
Robson 2000b (1999) [74] Placebo vs. sequential GM-CSF and bFGF 735 Percent additional reduction of ulcer volume 2,205 3
Sanada 2010 (2007) [75] New incentive system vs. non-introduced control Dominant reduction in DESIGN score −16 4.1
Xakellis 1992 (1990) [76] Hydrocolloid (DuoDERM) vs. gauze Dominanta ulcer-free day gained −25 2
Sebern 1986b (1985) [77] Grade II PrU: MVP vs. gauze Dominanta percent additional reduction of ulcer area −1,925 48
Sebern 1986b (1985) [77] Grade III PrU: MVP vs. gauze 9a percent additional reduction of ulcer area 217 23
  1. BCT, Balsam Peru plus hydrogenated castor oil plus trypsin ointment; bFGF, Basic fibroblast growth factor; GM-CSF, Granulocyte-macrophage/colony-stimulating factor; ICER, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; MVP, Moisture vapor permeable dressing; PrU, Pressure ulcer; QALY, Quality-adjusted life-year; US$, United States dollars.
  2. aDenotes the higher quality studies (Drummond score ≥8).
  3. bMultiple comparisons are reported.