Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary characteristics of all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs)

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

Characteristic

No. of CEAs (n = 59)

Percentage of CEAs

Original year of values

  

  1982–1996

15

25.4

  1997–2000

19

32.2

  2001–2005

10

16.9

  2006–2010

15

25.4

Year of publication

  

  1988–1996

7

11.9

  1997–2001

21

35.6

  2002–2006

12

20.3

  2007–2012

19

32.2

Country of conduct

  

  Europe (17 from the UK)

34

57.6

  North America (16 from USA)

19

32.2

  Asia

3

5.1

  Australia and New Zealand

3

5.1

Perspective

  

  Public payer

17

28.8

  Society

8

13.6

  Provider

6

10.2

  Health care system

1

1.7

  Not reported

27

45.8

Efficacy study design

  

  RCT

44

74.6

  Observational

9

15.3

  Systematic review of RCT

4

6.8

  Systematic reviewa

1

1.7

  Pseudo-RCT

1

1.7

Sample size b

  

  10–30

4

6.8

  31–50

11

18.6

  51–100

12

20.3

  101–150

5

8.5

  151–200

3

5.1

  201–400

16

27.1

  >400

8

13.6

Patient age c (years)

  

  50–59

5

8.5

  60–69

20

33.9

  70–79

18

30.5

  80–89

8

13.6

  Not reported

8

13.6

Timeframe

  

  ≤12 weeks

28

47.5

  13–24 weeks

9

15.3

  >24 weeks

22

37.3

Funding source d

  

  Private

23

39.0

  Public

10

16.9

  Mixed

6

10.2

  Not reported

20

33.9

Type of wound

  

  Venous ulcers

24

40.7

  Diabetic ulcers

16

27.1

  Pressure ulcers

14

23.7

  Mixed wounds

3

5.1

  Mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers

2

3.4

Unit of effectiveness

  

  Additional wound healed

26

44.1

  QALY gained

10

16.9

  Ulcer-free time (day/week/month) gained

9

15.3

  Percentage additional reduction of ulcer (area/volume/volume per week)

8

13.6

  Increase in healing rate

2

3.4

  Reduction in DESIGN score

1

1.7

  Patient-year gained

1

1.7

  Hospital-free day gained

1

1.7

  Foot-related hospitalization avoided

1

1.7

Interventions e

  

  Dressings

17

24.3

  Bandage

12

17.1

  Biologics

8

11.4

  Topical Tx

8

11.4

  Wound care programs

7

10.0

  Devices

5

7.1

  Skin replacement Tx

4

5.7

  Oral Tx

3

4.3

  Support surfaces

2

2.9

  Stockings

1

1.4

  Surgery

1

1.4

  Wound cleansing

1

1.4

  Unspecified

1

1.4

Comparators e

  

  Dressings

17

24.3

  Bandage

8

11.4

  No Tx

6

8.6

  Biologics

4

5.7

  Stockings

2

2.9

  Support surfaces

2

2.9

  Topical Tx

2

2.9

  Wound care programs

2

2.9

  Devices

1

1.4

  Surgery

1

1.4

  Usual care/Unspecified

25

35.7

  1. QALY, Quality-adjusted life-year; RCT, Randomized clinical trial; Tx, Therapy/treatment.
  2. aNot specified if the included studies were RCTs.
  3. bFor studies based on a review, this refers to the total sample size of the combined studies that the data were estimated from.
  4. cAge here refers to mean age or the age used in the model.
  5. dMixed here indicates both private and public funding.
  6. eNumbers do not add up to 59 as some studies contributed data to more than one category.
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us