ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
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.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. 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.
- Non-Randomised Comparative Analysis and Cost-Minimisation Analysis of Macrophage-Modulating Cream on Mildly Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Real-World Preliminary Report.International wound journal · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) impose a vast health and economic burden on individuals and healthcare systems globally. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding ON101, a novel treatment for accelerating wound healing, to general wound care (GWC) versus GWC alone for DFUs in Singapore, a multi-ethnic country with increasing DFU prevalence in a growing type 2 diabetes population. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Markov model was utilized to estimate the healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 5 years from a healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were mainly derived from the Singapore Wound Registry and published literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Subgroup analyses stratified by clinically important DFU conditions and scenario analyses were conducted to confirm the study's robustness.
resultsCompared to GWC alone, adding ON101 yielded greater QALY gained (i.e., 0.15) and lower healthcare costs (i.e., -US$16237) for patients with DFUs. Remarkable cost-savings from the use of ON101 with GWC were observed for patients with complex DFUs, namely ICERs of -US$161 963, -US$181 726 and -US$199 130 per QALY gained for cases with HbA1c ≥ 9%, ulcer duration >6 months and ulcer size >5 cm
conclusionsCombining ON101 with GWC versus GWC alone was highly cost-effective for DFUs in Singapore. Also, the economic results for complex DFU cases underscore the value of ON101 in addressing DFU treatment challenges for managing complex cases, offering cost-savings alongside clinical 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.