Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27868341›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2017

A single-arm trial indirect comparison investigation: a proof-of-concept method to predict venous leg ulcer healing time for a new acellular synthetic matrix matched to standard care control.

Ronald Shannon, Andrea Nelson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Ronald ShannonGlobal Health Economic Projects LLC, Clifton Park, NY, USA.
Andrea NelsonHead of School, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare data on time to healing from two separate cohorts: one treated with a new acellular synthetic matrix plus standard care (SC) and one matched from four large UK pragmatic, randomised controlled trials [venous leg ulcer (VLU) evidence network]. We introduce a new proof-of-concept strategy to a VLU clinical evidence network, propensity score matching and sensitivity analysis to predict the feasibility of the new acellular synthetic matrix plus SC for success in future randomised, controlled clinical trials. Prospective data on chronic VLUs from a safety and effectiveness study on an acellular synthetic matrix conducted in one wound centre in the UK (17 patients) and three wound centres in Australia (36 patients) were compared retrospectively to propensity score-matched data from patients with comparable leg ulcer disease aetiology, age, baseline ulcer area, ulcer duration, multi-layer compression bandaging and majority of care completed in specialist wound centres (average of 1 visit per week), with the outcome measures at comparable follow-up periods from patients enrolled in four prospective, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised studies of venous ulcers in the UK (the comparison group; VLU evidence network). Analysis using Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a mean healing time of 73·1 days for ASM plus SC (ASM) treated ulcers in comparison with 83·5 days for comparison group ulcers treated with SC alone (Log rank test, χ

Indexed as

Acellular DermisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLeg UlcerMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSkin TransplantationAcellular synthetic matrixEvidence networkNon-healing leg ulcerPredictive analyticsPropensity scoreVenous ulcersVenUS III studyVenUS II studyVenUS I studyVenUS IV studyWound healing

Identifiers

PMID27868341
PMCPMC7949811

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.