Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26634882›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2016

Improved wound management at lower cost: a sensible goal for Australia.

Rosana E Norman, Michelle Gibb, Anthony Dyer, Jennifer Prentice, Stephen Yelland, Qinglu Cheng, Peter A Lazzarini, Keryln Carville, Karen Innes-Walker, Kathleen Finlayson and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International wound journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Magnetite-Based Nanostructured Coatings Functionalized withAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Rosana E NormanInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1957
Michelle GibbWound Management Innovation Cooperative Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Anthony DyerWound Management Innovation Cooperative Research Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jennifer PrenticeWounds West/Wound Healing Institute Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Stephen YellandBundall Medical Centre, Bundall, QLD, Australia.
Qinglu ChengInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.
Peter A LazzariniAllied Health Research Collaborative, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Queensland Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Keryln CarvilleSilver Chain Group, Perth, WA, Australia.
Karen Innes-WalkerInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.
Kathleen FinlaysonInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.
Helen EdwardsInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.
Edward BurnInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.
Nicholas GravesInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic wounds cost the Australian health system at least US$2·85 billion per year. Wound care services in Australia involve a complex mix of treatment options, health care sectors and funding mechanisms. It is clear that implementation of evidence-based wound care coincides with large health improvements and cost savings, yet the majority of Australians with chronic wounds do not receive evidence-based treatment. High initial treatment costs, inadequate reimbursement, poor financial incentives to invest in optimal care and limitations in clinical skills are major barriers to the adoption of evidence-based wound care. Enhanced education and appropriate financial incentives in primary care will improve uptake of evidence-based practice. Secondary-level wound specialty clinics to fill referral gaps in the community, boosted by appropriate credentialing, will improve access to specialist care. In order to secure funding for better services in a competitive environment, evidence of cost-effectiveness is required. Future effort to generate evidence on the cost-effectiveness of wound management interventions should provide evidence that decision makers find easy to interpret. If this happens, and it will require a large effort of health services research, it could be used to inform future policy and decision-making activities, reduce health care costs and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Wound HealingAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsGoalsHumansPrimary Health CareAustraliaChronic woundsCost-effectiveness analysisLeg ulcerWound management

Identifiers

PMID26634882
PMCPMC7949577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.