ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Assessing the Value of PureWick™ for Female Urinary Incontinence in Non-Acute Settings: Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionUrinary incontinence (UI) imposes a substantial clinical and economic burden. The PureWick™ device is a non-invasive alternative for women to pads/diapers and indwelling catheters, but its value has never been assessed internationally. We aimed at estimating the cost-utility and budget impact of introducing PureWick in nursing-home and home-care settings in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK.
methodsA 1-year decision model compared PureWick + pad with pad alone from the payer perspective (National Health Service-NHS/Personal Social Services). Model inputs were derived from a targeted literature review, national tariffs and manufacturer data; gaps were filled by expert judgement. The expected outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs for each strategy and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Parameter uncertainty was explored with both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A dynamic budget-impact model projected per-patient costs over 3 years considering an increasing uptake (from 5 to 15%) of PureWick over pads.
resultsRelative to pads alone, PureWick + pad provided more QALYs (0.7792 vs. 0.7790) at lower cost, resulting in a cost-saving strategy in all country-setting combinations. In these countries, budget-impact modelling predicted per-patient savings of 29-1071€ and 77-2354€ in nursing home and home-care settings, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model results across different countries and settings. The most influential parameters were unit cost and daily usage rate of the devices, nursing time requirements and the associated cost of nursing care.
conclusionAcross the countries and care settings analyzed, PureWick combined with pads was a dominant strategy compared with pads alone. Policy makers should consider its inclusion in continence-care pathways while supporting real-world evidence collection to confirm long-term effectiveness, usage patterns and uptake assumptions.
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.