Trial reportDiving and hyperbaric medicine2024
Economic analysis of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers.
Trial report in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 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.
- Article
- The Supporting Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Atopic Dermatitis Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of additional hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) compared to standard care (SC) for ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) regarding limb salvage and health status. Methods: An economic analysis was conducted, comprising cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, with a 12-month time horizon, using data from the DAMO₂CLES multicentre randomised clinical trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as cost per limb saved and cost-utility as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The difference in cost effectiveness between HBOT+SC and SC alone was determined via an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: One-hundred and twenty patients were included, with 60 allocated to HBOT+SC and 60 to SC. No significant cost difference was found in the intention-to-treat analysis: €3,791 (bias corrected and accelerated [BCA] 95% CI, €3,556 - €-11,138). Cost per limb saved showed an ICER of €37,912 (BCA 95% CI €-112,188 - €1,063,561) for HBOT+SC vs. SC. There was no significant difference in mean QALYs: 0.54 for HBOT+SC vs. 0.56 for SC alone (-0.02; BCA 95% CI -0.11-0.08). This resulted in a cost-utility of minus €227,035 (BCA 95% CI €-361,569,550 - €-52,588) per QALY. Subgroup analysis for Wagner stages III/IV showed an ICER of €19,005 (BCA 95%CI, -€18,487 - €264,334) while HBOT did not show any benefit for Wagner stage II. Conclusions: HBOT as an adjunct to SC showed no significant differences in costs and effectiveness for patients with DFUs regarding limb salvage and health status. However, for patients with Wagner stage III/IV ischaemic DFUs there was a trend towards better effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
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.