ReviewJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of intralesional and perilesional recombinant human epidermal growth factor vs hydrocolloid therapy in venous ulcer treatment in the Colombian context.
Review in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- "An Effective Solution to Accelerate the Healing of Complex Ulcers Using Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor (Intralesional Application): A Review".Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a comparative analysis of health care expenses and outcomes in response to the question: What is the cost-effectiveness of intralesional and perilesional recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) compared with hydrocolloid therapy in patients diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency without infection in Colombia?
methodsA Markov model was used to determine cost effectiveness over a 5-year period, considering the perspective of the health system in Colombia. The study included patients aged >18 years diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency and used clinical studies to calculate the probabilities of epithelialization, infection, recurrence, and mortality.
resultsRhEGF is more expensive per unit than hydrocolloids, but it is proven to be effective at healing ulcers in 8 to 12 weeks, even in complex cases. Hydrocolloids, in contrast, typically require 29.5 weeks on average, and ≤46 weeks for complex cases. Despite the cost, rhEGF is more cost effective because it achieves results comparable with hydrocolloid therapy at a lower cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year.
conclusionsBased on cost-effectiveness analysis, rhEGF is a superior alternative to hydrocolloids for treating venous ulcers in Colombia. Not only is it more affordable, but it also enhances patients' quality of life and streamlines the health care system's resource use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.