ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Continuously Diffused Oxygen Therapy Compared with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 2026. 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.
- Autologous Nanofat Indications in Wound Healing: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
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
Background: Continuous diffusion of oxygen (CDO) to wounds has demonstrated better effectiveness in healing wounds than negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). However, there is limited evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of CDO therapy and its comparison with NPWT. Objectives: The purpose of this analysis is to report on the cost-effectiveness of CDO and NPWT using published clinical results as well as real-world clinical outcomes and cost information. The objectives included analyzing the cost-effectiveness of CDO therapy across multiple wound types and anatomical locations, testing the data for robustness, and comparing the cost-effectiveness using results from controlled clinical studies for CDO and NPWT. Methods: A prospective patients database using real-world clinical results of 764 patients treated using CDO therapy in a broad range of clinical practices across a wide range of wound types and wound locations was analyzed. The clinical data were combined with real world billing data to draw statistically valid cost comparisons. Using 3 methodologies, the cost savings were demonstrated across 2 healthcare systems. Results: In the US, the average cost savings of CDO was US $14 238 vs NPWT to heal a wound. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CDO use in clinical practice had 79.2% full closure in 112 days compared with NPWT, which has 43.2% full closure in the same timeframe for similar wound sizes and severity. Discussion: There are two primary reasons for the significant cost savings. First, CDO therapy is much easier to apply and maintain than traditional NPWT, as CDO dressings can easily be changed by patients at home without the assistance of a nurse. The second reason is the substantially higher efficacy of CDO therapy. Conclusion: CDO is highly efficacious in clinical practice and cost-effective compared with NPWT and other therapies such as moist wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen.
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.