Trial reportFrontiers in public health2025
Cost-utility analysis of a polylactic acid matrix versus a collagen dressing for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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.
- Bioresorbable Polylactic Acid Matrix for Chronic Non-Healing Wounds: First Clinical Experience in Europe.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a common and serious complication of diabetes, often requiring the use of advanced care products, which may have high upfront costs. With the hypothesis that this approach leads to faster healing, reduced costs, and better quality-adjusted life years (QALY), this study evaluates the economic outcomes, including cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit, of an alloplastic polylactic acid (PLA) dermal matrix and compares it to collagen dressings in managing DFUs. Methods: This cost-utility analysis was based on a randomized controlled trial involving patients with DFUs treated with either PLA matrices or collagen dressings, alongside standard wound care. Data on wound healing, cost of care, and QALY were collected over the whole duration of the trial (31-week period). We conducted a cost-benefit analysis by quantifying the monetary impact of reduced time-to-heal and avoided healthcare utilization. Additionally, we performed a cost-utility analysis using QALYs to capture patient-centered benefits. Results: At 12 weeks, 90% of the PLA group achieved wound closure compared to 30% in the collagen group, with PLA matrices reducing healing time by 44%. The cumulative cost of treatment for PLA was significantly lower, averaging $2,928 compared to $5,542 for collagen dressings ( Conclusion: PLA dermal matrices provide a cost-effective alternative to collagen dressings, promoting faster wound closure, improved quality of life, and reduced healthcare costs. These results support the adoption of PLA as a preferred treatment for DFUs.
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.