↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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.
Title
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea C Tricco, Elise Cogo, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Paul A Khan, Geetha Sanmugalingham, Jesmin Antony, Jeffrey S Hoch, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 50 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 10 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,970,272
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,327
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,102
of 265,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#37
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 265,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.