ReviewInternational wound journal2009
Evaluation of the quality and cost-effectiveness of Versajet hydrosurgery.
Review in International wound journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Debridement for surgical wounds.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Hydrosurgical debridement versus conventional surgical debridement for acute partial-thickness burns.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Comparing the hydrosurgery system to conventional debridement techniques for the treatment of delayed healing wounds: a prospective, randomised clinical trial to investigate clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.International wound journal · 2015Trial
- Article
- New techniques for wound debridement.International wound journal · 2013Review
- Surgical debridement with VERSAJET: an analysis of bacteria load of the wound bed pre- and post-treatment and skin graft taken. A preliminary pilot study.International wound journal · 2011Article
- Infection in conflict wounded.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Judicious resource allocation to maximise benefits is essential to health care decision-making, particularly with increasingly expensive treatments and rising populations. Accurate wound debridement is important, and while many methods exist, surgical debridement is currently the gold standard with material costs at approximately pound 140. Versajet, a hydrosurgical device, is suggested by some to have facilitated a paradigm shift in wound management by allowing debridement of undesirable tissue while accurately preserving viable structures. Its proponents claim that it minimises surgical duration, length of hospital admission, improves wound healing and may be deployed at the bedside or in the community. Consoles and single-use hand-units cost pound 6000- pound 7000 and pound 220- pound 240, respectively. Some propose that hydrosurgery may provide an efficacious, efficient and cost-effective alterative to surgical debridement. However, the evidence available is largely based on expert opinion. Methodological flaws of such descriptive studies include the lack of control groups, selection bias and lack of blinding. Hence, these claims need to be interpreted cautiously. This opinion review examines the available evidence as to whether Versajet hydrosurgery provides quality and cost-effective care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.