Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28809389›Full record

Trial reportSpinal cord2017

Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone-based support for the management of pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury in India and Bangladesh.

M Arora, L A Harvey, J V Glinsky, H S Chhabra, M S Hossain, N Arumugam, P K Bedi, I D Cameron, A J Hayes

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Spinal cord, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Asia: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

M AroraJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
L A HarveyJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
J V GlinskyJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
H S ChhabraDepartment of Spine Service, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Delhi, India.
M S HossainCentre for Rehabilitation of the Paralysed, Savar, Bangladesh.
N ArumugamDepartment of Physiotherapy, Punjabi University, Patiala, India.
P K BediDepartment of Physiotherapy, Punjabi University, Patiala, India.
I D CameronJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
A J HayesSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUPunjabi University · INCentre for the Rehabilitation of the Paralysed · BDIndian Spinal Injuries Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of telephone-based support for management of pressure ulcers. STUDY

designCost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

settingTertiary centre in India and Bangladesh.

methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised clinical trial comparing 12 weeks of telephone-based support (intervention group) with usual care (control group). The analyses evaluated costs and health outcomes in terms of cm

resultsThe mean (95% confidence interval) between-group difference for the reduction in size of pressure ulcers was 0.53 (-3.12 to 4.32) cm

conclusionIn terms of QALYs, telephone-based support to help people manage pressure ulcers at home provides good value for money and has an 87% probability of being cost-effective, based on 3 times gross domestic product. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the overall cost data with and without productivity costs, and did not alter this conclusion.

Indexed as

AdultBangladeshCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansIndiaMalePressure UlcerProbabilityQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSingle-Blind MethodSpinal Cord InjuriesTelemedicineTelephoneTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28809389
OpenAlexW2748257454

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.