ArticleHealth science reports2024
Cost effectiveness analysis for commonly used human cell and tissue products in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Acellular Adipose Matrix on Wound Regeneration in a Murine Model.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- An Early Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Diabetes Related Foot Ulcer Healing.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Synthetic Nanofiber Wound Matrix for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Review
- The Role of Skin Substitutes in the Therapeutical Management of Burns Affecting Functional Areas.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Cost effectiveness analysis for commonly used human cell and tissue products in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.Health science reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This study considers the cost-effectiveness of commonly used cellular, acellular, and matrix‑like products (CAMPs) of human origin also known as human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps) in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: We developed a 1-year economic model assessing six CAMPs [cryopreserved placental membrane with viable cells (vCPM), bioengineered bilayered living cellular construct (BLCC), human fibroblast dermal substitute (hFDS), dehydrated human amnion chorion membrane (dHACM), hypothermically stored amniotic membrane (HSAM) and human amnion membrane allograft (HAMA) which had randomized controlled trial evidence compared with standard of care (SoC). CAMPs were compared indirectly and ranked in order of cost-effectiveness using SoC as the baseline, from a CMS/Medicare's perspective. Results: The mean cost, healed wounds (hw) and QALYs per patient for vCPM is $10,907 (0.914 hw, 0.783 QALYs), for HAMA $11,470 (0.903 hw, 0.780 QALYs), for dHACM $15,862 (0.828 hw, 0.764 QALYs), for BLCC $18,430 (0.816 hw, 0.763 QALYs), for hFDS $19,498 (0.775 hw, 0.757 QALYs), for SoC $19,862 (0.601 hw, 0.732 QALYs) and $24, 214 (0.829, 0.763 QALYs) for HSAM respectively. Over 1 year, vCPM results in cheaper costs overall and better clinical outcomes compared to other CAMPs. Following probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vCPM has a 60%, HAMA 40% probability of being cost-effective then dHACM, hFDS, BLCC, and lastly HSAM using a $100,000/healed wound or QALY threshold. Conclusions: All CAMPs were shown to be cost-effective when compared to SoC in managing DFUs. However, vCPM appears to be the most cost-effective CAMP over the modelled 52 weeks followed by HAMA, dHACM, hFDS, BLCC, and HSAM. We urge caution in interpreting the results because we currently lack head-to-head evidence comparing all these CAMPs and therefore suggest that this analysis be updated when more direct evidence of CAMPs becomes available.
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.