ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Managing Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU) in USA: Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) vs Standard of Care (SoC).
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Biomaterials and Antimicrobial Dressings in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of ON101 with general wound care for diabetic foot ulcers among patients with type 2 diabetes in Singapore: Analysis of a multi-ethnic country in Asia.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic skin ulcers in diabetic foot patients are a significant health concern. Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) significantly threaten the health and longevity of individuals with diabetes, leading to severe complications like infection and amputation and contributing to high morbidity and mortality rates. Given the severe implications, practical strategies to prevent and manage DFUs are crucial to reducing amputation rates. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a popular treatment option due to its properties that mimic the body's natural healing process. The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PRPR vs standard of care in US context. Methods: Decision analytical model was used to synthesize clinical and economic parameters. In detail a CEA analysis was employed using a Markov decision-making model to evaluate patients with chronic DFUs lasting over three weeks and at high risk for orthopedic complications. The study assessed the effectiveness of different treatments, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and reported costs in 2023 dollars using a micro-costing approach alongside a clinical trial. Results: The study concluded that PRP gel is a cost-effective treatment for non-healing DFUs, resulting in lower care costs over one year compared to other treatments and cost savings over five years. Conclusion: Thus, PRP treatment is a promising and practical option, improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. It is an attractive choice for healthcare providers and insurers in managing non-healing diabetic foot ulcers.
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.