An economic evaluation examining the cost‐effectiveness of continuous diffusion of oxygen therapy for individuals with diabetic foot ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous delivery of oxygen therapy has been observed to improve healing for individuals with an advanced diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). However, this intervention requires the purchasing of an oxygen delivery device and moist dressings. It is unknown whether this upfront financial investment represents good value for money. Thus the aim of this project is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating advanced DFU using continuous delivery of oxygen compared with negative pressure wound therapy from the perspective of the public health care payer in Ontario, Canada. A microsimulation model was constructed with inputs from peer-reviewed journal publications and publicly available reports. The 5-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years were compared between treatment and comparator. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of results. The model predicted that continuous delivery of oxygen would cost $4800 less compared with negative pressure wound therapy and increased quality-adjusted life years by 0.025. Lower cost and improved outcomes were observed in most scenario analyses. The results of this economic evaluation suggest that CDO therapy may reduce health care economic burden with a modest increase in quality of life outcomes. Health care decision-makers should consider the inclusion of CDO for the treatment of DFU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".