ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Economic Impact of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation Compared With Standard Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and Gauze Dressing in Acute Traumatic Wounds.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time has demonstrated clinical benefits in complex wounds, but data regarding its economic impact in traumatic wounds remain limited. This study evaluated differences in overall hospitalisation costs and wound-related inpatient costs among patients with acute traumatic wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy and gauze dressings. Hospitalisation costs and inputs for a wound-related economic model were obtained from a single-centre randomised controlled trial including patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation, standard negative pressure wound therapy or gauze dressings for acute traumatic wounds. Wound-related cost per patient was estimated as the sum of costs associated with wound-related inpatient stay, surgical procedures and wound therapy products. Total overall hospitalisation cost was lower for patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation ($7814) compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy ($7890) and gauze dressing ($9735), although these differences were not statistically significant. Modelled wound-related costs were lower in the instillation therapy group ($3390) compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy ($4149) and gauze dressing ($4275). These differences were primarily driven by shorter time to wound closure and fewer surgical procedures. Using randomised controlled trial-derived inputs, negative pressure wound therapy with instillation was associated with lower modelled wound-related costs than standard negative pressure wound therapy and gauze dressing in patients with acute traumatic wounds. These differences were primarily driven by shorter time to wound closure and fewer wound-related surgical procedures. Because overall hospitalisation costs and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between groups, these findings should be interpreted as modelled wound-related cost differences rather than demonstrated reductions in total hospitalisation expenditure.
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.