↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Single-use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Treat Chronic Venous and Diabetic Foot Ulcers.
Published in
Wound Management & Prevention, March 2020
DOI 10.25270/wmp.2020.3.3036
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Lower extremity ulcers such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) have a major clinical and economic impact on patients and providers. The purpose of this economic evaluation was to determine the cost-effectiveness of single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) compared with traditional NPWT (tNPWT) for the treatment of VLUs and DFUs in the United States. A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare the incremental cost and ulcer weeks avoided for a time horizon of 12 and 26 weeks using lower extremity ulcer closure rates from a published randomized controlled trial (N = 161) that compared sNPWT with tNPWT. Treatment costs were extracted from a retrospective cost-minimization study of sNPWT and tNPWT from the payer perspective using US national 2016 Medicare claims data inflated to 2018 costs and multiplied by 7 to estimate the weekly costs of treatment for sNPWT and tNPWT. Two (2) arms of the model, tNPWT and sNPWT, were calculated separately for a combination of both VLU and DFU ulcer types. In this model, a hypothetical cohort of patients began in the open ulcer health state, and at the end of each weekly cycle a proportion of the cohort moved into the closed ulcer health state according to a constant transition probability. The costs over the defined timescale were summed to give a total cost of treatment for each arm of the model, and then the difference between the arms was calculated. Effectiveness was calculated by noting the incidence of healing at 12 and 26 weeks and the total number of open ulcer weeks; the incremental effectiveness was calculated as sNPWT effectiveness minus tNPWT effectiveness. Data were extracted to Excel spreadsheets and subjected to one-way sensitivity, scenario (where patients with unhealed ulcers were changed to standard care at 4 or 12 weeks), probabilistic, and threshold analyses. sNPWT was found to provide an expected cost saving of $7756 per patient and an expected reduction of 1.67 open ulcer weeks per patient over 12 weeks and a cost reduction of $15 749 and 5.31 open ulcer weeks over 26 weeks. Probabilistic analysis at 26 weeks showed 99.8% of the simulations resulted in sNPWT dominating tNPWT. Scenario analyses showed that sNPWT remained dominant over tNPWT (cost reductions over 26 weeks of $2536 and $7976 per patient, respectively). Using sNPWT for VLUs and DFUs is likely to be more cost-effective than tNPWT from the US payer perspective and may provide an opportunity for policymakers to reduce the economic burden of lower extremity ulcers.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2021.
All research outputs
#12,350,644
of 34,378,656 outputs
Outputs from Wound Management & Prevention
#6
of 37 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,853
of 417,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wound Management & Prevention
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,378,656 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 37 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one scored the same or higher as 31 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them