02470nas a2200217 4500000000100000008004100001100001400042700001100056700002100067700001100088700002100099700001300120700001200133700001300145245013900158856008700297300000700384490000700391520184000398022001402238 2015 d1 aTricco AC1 aCogo E1 aIsaranuwatchai W1 aKhan P1 aSanmugalingham G1 aAntony J1 aHoch JS1 aStraus S00aA systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types. uhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405871/pdf/12916_2015_Article_326.pdf a900 v133 a

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.

 a1741-7015