Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32353082›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Economic evaluations considering costs and outcomes of diabetic foot ulcer infections: A systematic review.

Taylor-Jade Woods, Fisaha Tesfay, Peter Speck, Billingsley Kaambwa

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06721754 (Diabetes Related Foot Ulcers With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06721754 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Diabetes Related Foot Ulcers With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, AkershusRan2025 to 2028Enrolled50ConditionsDiabetic Foot UlcerArmsNegative Pressure Wound Treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Long Term Outcomes After Flexor Tendon Tenotomy of the Diabetic Foot.Clinical medicine insights. Endocrinology and diabetes · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Taylor-Jade WoodsCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0545-0401
Fisaha TesfayCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0399-1711
Peter SpeckCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia.
Billingsley KaambwaCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a severe complication of diabetes and particularly susceptible to infection. DFU infection intervention efficacy is declining due to antimicrobial resistance and a systematic review of economic evaluations considering their economic feasibility is timely and required.

aimTo obtain and critically appraise all available full economic evaluations jointly considering costs and outcomes of infected DFUs.

methodsA literature search was conducted across MedLine, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane Database seeking evaluations published from inception to 2019 using specific key concepts. Eligibility criteria were defined to guide study selection. Articles were identified by screening of titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review before inclusion. We identified 352 papers that report economic analysis of the costs and outcomes of interventions aimed at diabetic foot ulcer infections. Key characteristics of eligible economic evaluations were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

results542 records were screened and 39 full-texts assessed for eligibility. A total of 19 papers were included in the final analysis. All studies except one identified cost-saving or cost-effective interventions. The evaluations included in the final analysis were so heterogeneous that comparison of them was not possible. All studies were of "excellent", "very good" or "good" quality when assessed against the CHEERS checklist.

conclusionsConsistent identification of cost-effective and cost-saving interventions may help to reduce the DFU healthcare burden. Future research should involve clinical implementation of interventions with parallel economic evaluation rather than model-based evaluations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetic FootHumansTreatment OutcomeWound Infection

Identifiers

PMID32353082
PMCPMC7192475

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.