Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26315567›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2015

The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.

Catherine Meads, Eleonora Lovato, Louise Longworth

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A Novel In Vitro Scrubber Model for Evaluating Wound Cleansing on Biofilms.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine MeadsHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK. catherine.meads@brunel.ac.uk.
Eleonora LovatoIMS Health, 210 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9JY, UK.
Louise LongworthHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK.
Brunel University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft(®) monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC's findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft(®) to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft(®) was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft(®) remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft(®). The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft(®) and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesDebridementHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUnited KingdomWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID26315567
PMCPMC4661219
OpenAlexW1941009832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.