ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Cost Analysis of Pure Hypochlorous Acid Preserved Wound Cleanser versus Mafenide for the Irrigation of Burn Wounds.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 40,000 patients in the United States (US) require hospitalization for burns annually. The treatment regimen can cost more than $6,000 a day and requires the use of numerous supplies to ensure the graft takes for successful wound healing. Irrigation of the wound is a critical step for burn treatment, yet little is known about the cost-effectiveness of different irrigation modalities. In a recent study, pure hypochlorous acid preserved wound cleanser (pHA) was shown to be safe and effective compared to mafenide. This study estimated the associated costs of two common wound irrigation modalities, pHA and mafenide solution, for the treatment of patients with burns. In this study, a patient-level Monte Carlo simulation model using data from a randomized control trial (RCT) was used to conduct the cost analysis from the US Hospital perspective. Based upon 100,000 simulated patients, pHA was expected to save $133 ($123 to $144, 10
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.