Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404842›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2021

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive negative pressure wound therapy in paediatric burn care: evidence from the SONATA in C randomised controlled trial.

Cody C Frear, Bronwyn R Griffin, Leila Cuttle, Roy M Kimble, Steven M McPhail

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05474911 (RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE CLINICAL STUDY BETWEEN TWO TREATMENT STRATEGIES IN PATIENTS WITH PILONIDAL SINUS), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT05474911 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Randomized comparative clinical study between two treatment strategies in patients with pilonidal sinus: conventional care versus negative pressure therapy.

TypeinterventionalSponsorSebastiano BiondoRan2022 to 2023Enrolled94ConditionsPilonidal Sinus, Wound HealArmsNegative pressure therapy, Conventional wound care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. An Overview of Recent Developments in the Management of Burn Injuries.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cody C FrearCentre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Level 7, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia. cody.frear@uqconnect.edu.au.
Bronwyn R GriffinCentre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Level 7, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.
Leila CuttleCentre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Level 7, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.
Roy M KimbleCentre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Level 7, Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, 62 Graham St, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.
Steven M McPhailAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUChildren's Medical Research Institute · AUGriffith University · AUMetro South Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes for children with burns by accelerating wound re-epithelialisation. Its effects on healthcare costs, however, remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NPWT from a healthcare provider perspective using evidence from the SONATA in C randomised controlled trial, in which 101 children with small-area burns were allocated to either standard care (silver-impregnated dressings) or standard care in combination with adjunctive NPWT. The primary outcome, time to re-epithelialisation, was assessed through a blinded photographic review. Resource usage and costs were prospectively recorded for each participant for up to 6 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and dominance probabilities were estimated and uncertainty quantified using bootstrap resampling. Mean costs per participant-including dressings, labour, medication, scar management, and theatre operations-were lower in the NPWT group (AUD $903.69) relative to the control group (AUD $1669.01). There was an 89% probability that NPWT was dominant, yielding both faster re-epithelialisation and lower overall costs. Findings remained robust to sensitivity analyses employing alternative theatre costs and time-to-re-epithelialisation estimates for grafted patients. In conclusion, adjunctive NPWT is likely to be a cost-effective and dominant treatment for small-area paediatric burns (ANZCTR.org.au:ACTRN12618000256279).

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisBurnsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRe-EpithelializationTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID34404842
PMCPMC8371025
OpenAlexW3193317189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.