Trial reportInternational wound journal2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the geko™ device (an NMES technology) in managing venous leg ulcers in UK healthcare settings.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost Effectiveness of Venous Leg Ulcer Healing Using Muscle Pump Activation.International wound journal · 2026Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the geko™ device (an NMES technology) in managing venous leg ulcers in UK healthcare settings.International wound journal · 2024Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Electrical Stimulation Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Economic Analysis.Journal of market access & health policy · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the geko device a neuromuscular electro-stimulator technology with standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone for venous leg ulcer (VLU) treatment, from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective over 12 months. Research was conducted across NHS UK facilities, primarily within community services and outpatient leg ulcer clinics, encompassing a total of 51 patients. A partitioned survival model, based on a two-arm randomised controlled trial, assessed wound healing rates using Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric extrapolations over a 12-month time horizon. Costs were derived from UK reference costs the British National Formulary, and the Personal Social Services Research Unit (2021/22). The primary outcome measured was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The geko device provides additional benefits by stimulating the lateral popliteal nerve, augmenting venous, arterial, and microvascular flow. The addition of the geko device to SoC significantly enhanced outcomes, increasing healing probability by 68% compared to SoC. This integration would result in a cost saving of £774.14 per patient when compared to the SoC alone across the NHS. Economic analyses indicate that integrating the geko device into SoC protocols would reduce the overall NHS expenditure on VLU wound management by as much as 15%. The approach also positively impacted health-related quality of life. The geko™ device when used adjunctively with SoC would be a cost-effective method for managing chronic VLUs within the NHS, improving healing rates and offering economic benefits.
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.