ArticleInternational wound journal2026
An Early Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Diabetes Related Foot Ulcer Healing.
Article in International wound journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetes related foot ulcers (DFUs) cause significant morbidity and mortality. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is a promising adjunct to promote healing. This study aimed to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of ESWT in DFU healing. Early model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. A de novo four-state, 1-day cycle, Markov model was developed. The perspective for the analysis was the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services over a 1-year time horizon. Input parameters were estimated from the literature. Low dose ESWT, high dose ESWT and standard care alone were evaluated by running a simulation of 1000 patients with one DFU. Deterministic, probabilistic and value of information analysis were undertaken. Deterministic analysis indicated high dose ESWT has the potential to be a dominant strategy (i.e., no incremental analysis was necessary), exhibiting higher QALYs and lower costs compared to low dose ESWT and standard care. The mean difference in QALYs and costs between high dose ESWT and standard care were 0.022 QALYs and a £922 cost reduction. Preliminary probabilistic analysis, using a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, estimated a 60.2% probability of high dose ESWT being cost-effective compared to standard care. The value of eliminating uncertainty in the model (EVPI) was estimated at £24.56 per patient, with high dose efficacy (partial EVPI per patient £7.87) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores (partial EVPI per patient £3.56) identified as specific areas for future research. This study suggests that ESWT could be a dominant adjunct to aid DFU healing. A definitive study is warranted to estimate ESWT's effectiveness and related HRQoL scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.