Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30820871›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2019

Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel Dressings for the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance.

C Marshall, J Shore, M Arber, M Cikalo, T Oladapo, A Peel, R McCool, Michelle Jenks

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C MarshallYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
J ShoreYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
M ArberYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
M CikaloYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
T OladapoNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M1 4BT, UK.
A PeelYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
R McCoolYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK.
Michelle JenksYork Health Economics Consortium, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NQ, UK. michelle.jenks@york.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1637-1506
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings are self-adherent, multilayer foam dressings designed for use on the heel and sacrum aiming to prevent pressure ulcers. The dressings are used in addition to standard care protocols for pressure ulcer prevention. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings for evaluation. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission. Thirteen studies (four randomised controlled trials and nine nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. The majority of studies compared Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings (plus standard care) with standard care alone. Comparative evidence for Mepilex Border Heel dressings was limited. A meta-analysis indicated a non-statistically significant difference in favour of Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings for pressure ulcer incidence [RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-1.18)]. The company produced a de novo cost model, which was critiqued by the EAC. After the EAC updated input parameters, cost savings of £19 per patient compared with standard care alone for pressure ulcer prevention were estimated with Mepilex Border dressings predicted to be cost saving in 57% of iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence and judged that, although Mepilex Border Heel and Sacrum dressings have potential to prevent pressure ulcers in people who are considered to be at risk in acute care settings, further evidence is required to address uncertainties around the claimed benefits of the dressings and the incidence of pressure ulcers in an NHS acute-care setting. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 40.

Indexed as

HeelSacrumBandagesHumansPressure UlcerTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30820871
PMCPMC6647510
OpenAlexW2920772225

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.