Economic evaluation of soft silicon foam dressings versus sterile gauze for the treatment of pressure ulcers in China

doi:10.5246/jcps.2013.05.067

• Original articles • Previous Articles Next Articles

Economic evaluation of soft silicon foam dressings versus sterile gauze for the treatment of pressure ulcers in China

Sheng Han, Kuan Wang, Run Pu, Luwen Shi^*

1. Public Health College, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
2. International Research Center of Medicinal Administration, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
3. China National Center for Biotechnology Development, Beijing 100036, China

Received:2012-11-15 Revised:2013-03-22 Online:2013-09-15 Published:2013-09-15
Contact: Luwen Shi*

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of soft silicone foam dressings (SSFD, Mepilex) on the treatment of pressure ulcers. We searched electronic databases and retrieved articles to make a systematic evaluation, and then make a cost-effectiveness analysis by decision tree model combined with data from clinical treatments. The result shows that compared with the common sterile gauze, SSFD possesses an apparent advantage. The effective ratio is 96.3% versus 77.3%, although the cost of SSFD is much higher than that of sterile gauze, Mepilex appears to be more cost-effectiveness for preventive use.

Key words: ft silicon foam dressings, Cost-effectiveness, Pressure ulcers, Systematic evaluation

CLC Number:

R956

Supporting:

Sheng Han, Kuan Wang, Run Pu, Luwen Shi^*. Economic evaluation of soft silicon foam dressings versus sterile gauze for the treatment of pressure ulcers in China [J]. , DOI: 10.5246/jcps.2013.05.067.

References

[1] Jiang, L.P.; Wu, L.N. Mod. Nurs. 2009, 94-95.
[2] He, X.R.; Huang, Y.Y. Adv. J. Nurs. 2010, 3, 465-467.
[3] Wen, X.M.; Li, X.C. Chin. Gen. Pract. Nurs. 2010, 8, 694-695.
[4] Ma, J.H.; Xie, Q. Med. World. 2009, 6, 224-225.
[5] Li, H.; Liu, Q. Chin. J. Misdiagn. 2010, 9, 6347-6348.
[6] Liu, A.H. Chin. J. Clin. Rational. Drug Use. 2009, 8, 49-51.
[7] Zhao, L.Y.; Liang, J. Chin. J. Misdiagn. 2010, 2, 1043-1044.
[8] Cui, X.L. Chin. J. Injury Repair Wound Healing. 2009, 4, 419-423.
[9] Chen, H.F.; Zheng, P. Fujian Med. J. 2010, 4, 138.
[10] Hu, Y.J.; Zhou, W.J. J. Nurs. Sci. 2009, 10, 14-15.
[11] Xie, E.Q. Med. J. Chin. People Health. 2010, 10, 2628-2629.
[12] Zhao, X.W. Chin. Gen. Pract. Nurs. 2011, 2, 479-480.
[13] Dong, S.Q.; Geng, R.J.; Chen, L. J. North China Coal Med. Univ. 2008, 9, 699-700.
[14] Yi, Y.P.; Li, C.L. Nurs. J. Chin. PLA. 2010, 5, 760-761.
[15] Xu, J.; Ji, A.P. Chin. Nurs. Res. 2010, 3, 716-717.
[16] Wang, A.X. Chin. Pract. Med. 2008, 5, 93-94.
[17] Liu, X.P.; Sun, S.F.; Wang, H. J. Nurs. Train. 2011, 8, 1405-1406.
[18] White, R. Wounds UK. 2005, 4, 14-22.
[19] Meaume, S.; Van De Looverbosch, D.; Heyman, H.; Romanelli, M.; Ciangherotti, A.; Charpin, S. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003, 49, 44-51.
[20] Viamontes, L.; Temple, D.; Wytall, D. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2003, 49, 48-52, 54-58.
[21] Zhao, G.; Hiltabidel, E.; Liu, Y. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2010, 56, 38-42.
[22] Dahlstrøm, K.K. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. 1995, 29, 325-327.
[23] Scott, N. J. Trauma. 1998, 28, 1488-1492.
[24] MacBride, S.K.; Wells, M.E.; Hornsby, C.; Sharp, L.; Finnila, K.; Downie, L. Cancer Nurs. 2008, 31, 8-14.
[25] Franks, P.J.; Moody, M.; Moffatt, C.J.; Hiskett, G.; Gatto, P.; Davies, C.; Furlong, W.T. Wound Repair Regen. 2007, 15, 197-202.
[26] Dykes, P.J.; Heggie, R.; Hill, S.A. J. Wound Care. 2001, 10, 7-10.
[27] Viamontes, L.; Jones, A.M. Br. J. Nurs. 2003, 12, S43-49.
[28] Woo, K.Y.; Coutts, P.M.; Price, P.; Harding, K.; Sibbald, R.G. Adv. Skin Wound Care. 2009, 22, 304-310.
[29] Diggelmann, K.; Zytkovicz, A.; Tuaine, J.; Bennett, N.; Kelly, L.; Herst, P. Br. J. Radiol. 2010, 7, 971-978.
[30] Barrett, S. Br. J. Nurs. 2009, 18, 12-25.

Economic evaluation of soft silicon foam dressings versus sterile gauze for the treatment of pressure ulcers in China

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 4

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Wentao Zhu, Wanglong Hong, Miaomiao Zheng, Guoqiang Ma, Aizong Shen. Combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced triple-negative breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis [J]. Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2023, 32(7): 587-597.
[2]	Shaohong Luo, Liangliang Dong, Yiyuan Li, Dan Xu, Min Chen. Cost-effectiveness analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and osimertinib) as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer [J]. Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2021, 30(3): 253-263.
[3]	Shen Lin, Xin Rao, Yiyuan Li, Xiuhua Weng, Changlian Wang. Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line chemotherapy strategies for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer [J]. Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2020, 29(8): 542-553.
[4]	Xin Zong, Li-Hua Sun^*. A review of the methods for determining cost-effectiveness threshold in health care [J]. , 2011, 20(6): 542-548.