Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: an umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to summarize the systematic review findings of economic evaluations to prevent or treat pressure ulcers. INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcers/injuries are one of the most common preventive complications characterized by local tissue injury. Pressure ulcers increase the mortality rate, impair quality of life, prolong the length of hospital stay, increase the cost of treatments, and alter general health outcomes. Published studies found higher costs in pressure ulcer treatment when compared to their prevention. Treatment costs vary depending on the pressure ulcer category (the higher the category, the higher the costs). This umbrella review systematically reviewed the evidence on pressure ulcer prevention or treatment from an economic perspective. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible systematic reviews investigating both the cost and outcomes associated with the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers were included. Systematic reviews dealing with economic evaluation of wound care or management were excluded if they did not provide separate analyses for pressure ulcers. All health economic outcomes were considered as primary outcomes of the review. METHODS: We searched Epistemonikos, MEDLINE (Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) website for relevant health economic systematic reviews from database inception, without any language restrictions. Titles and abstracts as well as full texts were screening independently by 2 reviewers. We assessed the methodological quality independently using the standard JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. RESULTS: We identified 14 systematic reviews, 7 with a priori published protocols. Nine were of high methodological quality and 5 were of moderate methodological quality. None of the systematic reviews focused primarily on the pressure ulcers' cost-effectiveness; however, all the included systematic reviews assessed cost-effectiveness, either prevention, treatment, or both, with different preventive approaches and interventions. The most cost-effective prevention strategies reported multifaceted interventions, including repositioning regimens, pressure redistribution mattresses or overlays, and oral nutritional supplements. The most cost-effective treatment strategies reported for pressure ulcers were foam and collagenase dressing over saline-soaked gauze and enteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review identified nutrition support, foam and collagenase dressing, and pressure redistribution mattresses or overlays to be most cost-effective in preventing or treating pressure ulcers in a few of the included systematic reviews, while other systematic reviews lacked sufficient data on economic outcomes to make a determination. We recommend future studies focus on well-designed, full economic evaluations addressing the question of cost-effectiveness in prevention and management of pressure ulcers, especially in terms of repositioning. REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://osf.io/9y2a7/. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: Translations of the review abstract are available in Czech ( http://links.lww.com/SRX/A108 ), French ( http://links.lww.com/SRX/A109 ), and Spanish ( http://links.lww.com/SRX/A110 ).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".