ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
A Cost-Utility Analysis of the Use of -125 mm Hg Closed-incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative Impact of Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Following Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Cosmetic Tourism: A Cost-utility Analysis of Abdominoplasty Performed in the United States and Abroad.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Closed-incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) decreases the rate of wound complications in oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) but at a fiscal cost. Our aim was to examine the cost-utility of ciNPT in OBS. Methods: A literature review was performed to obtain the probabilities and outcomes for the treatment of unilateral breast cancer with OBS with ciNPT versus without. Reported utility scores in the literature were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each health state. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback analysis to determine the more cost-effective strategy. An incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: OBS with ciNPT is associated with a higher clinical effectiveness (QALY) of 33.43 compared to without (33.42), and relative cost increase of $667.89. The resulting incremental cost-utility ratio of $57432.93/QALY favored ciNPT. In one-way sensitivity analysis, ciNPT was the more cost-effective strategy if the cost of ciNPT was less than $1347.02 or if the probability of wound dehiscence without was greater than 8.2%. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 75.39% that surgery with ciNPT is more cost effective. Conclusion: Despite the added cost, surgery with ciNPT is cost-effective. This finding is a direct result of decreased overall wound complications with ciNPT.
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.