预防和治疗压疮干预措施的经济评价:概括性综述。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarová, Salman Hussain, Tereza Vrbová, Simona Slezáková, Petra Búřilová, Simona Saibertová, Dana Dolanová, Lenka Krupová, Jan Mužík, Jiří Jarkovský, Andrea Pokorna
{"title":"预防和治疗压疮干预措施的经济评价:概括性综述。","authors":"Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarová, Salman Hussain, Tereza Vrbová, Simona Slezáková, Petra Búřilová, Simona Saibertová, Dana Dolanová, Lenka Krupová, Jan Mužík, Jiří Jarkovský, Andrea Pokorna","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to summarize the systematic review findings of economic evaluations to prevent or treat pressure ulcers.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 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. All health economic outcomes were considered as primary outcomes of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 14 systematic reviews, 7 with a priori published protocols: 9 were of high 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 or 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9y2a7/.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: an umbrella review.\",\"authors\":\"Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarová, Salman Hussain, Tereza Vrbová, Simona Slezáková, Petra Búřilová, Simona Saibertová, Dana Dolanová, Lenka Krupová, Jan Mužík, Jiří Jarkovský, Andrea Pokorna\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-23-00488\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to summarize the systematic review findings of economic evaluations to prevent or treat pressure ulcers.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 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. All health economic outcomes were considered as primary outcomes of the study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 14 systematic reviews, 7 with a priori published protocols: 9 were of high 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 or 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9y2a7/.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00488\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本综述的目的是总结预防或治疗压疮的经济评价的系统评价结果。压疮/损伤是最常见的以局部组织损伤为特征的预防性并发症之一。压疮增加死亡率,损害生活质量,延长住院时间,增加治疗费用,并改变一般健康结果。发表的研究发现,与预防压疮相比,治疗压疮的成本更高。治疗费用因压疮种类而异(类别越高,费用越高)。本综述系统地回顾了从经济角度预防或治疗压疮的证据。纳入标准:纳入调查与预防或治疗压疮相关的成本和结果的符合条件的系统评价。处理伤口护理或管理的经济评价的系统综述如果没有提供压疮的单独分析,则被排除。方法:我们从一开始就在Epistemonikos、MEDLINE (Ovid)、NHS经济评估数据库和加拿大卫生药品和技术局(CADTH)网站上检索相关的卫生经济系统综述,没有任何语言限制。题目、摘要和全文由2位审稿人独立筛选。我们使用标准的JBI系统评价和研究综合关键评价工具独立评估方法学质量。所有健康经济结果被视为研究的主要结果。结果:我们确定了14篇系统综述,7篇是先验发表的方案,9篇是高质量的,5篇是中等质量的方法学。没有一项系统综述主要关注压疮的成本效益;然而,所有纳入的系统评价都评估了不同预防方法和干预措施的成本效益,无论是预防还是治疗,还是两者兼而有之。最具成本效益的预防战略报告了多方面的干预措施,包括重新定位方案、压力重新分配床垫或覆盖层以及口服营养补充剂。据报道,最具成本效益的压疮治疗策略是泡沫和胶原酶敷料在盐水浸泡纱布和肠内营养。结论:本综述确定了在一些纳入的系统综述中,营养支持、泡沫和胶原酶敷料、压力再分配床垫或覆盖层在预防或治疗压疮方面最具成本效益,而其他系统综述缺乏足够的经济结果数据来做出决定。我们建议未来的研究将重点放在设计良好、全面的经济评估上,以解决预防和管理压疮的成本效益问题,特别是在重新定位方面。评审注册:Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9y2a7/。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: an umbrella review.

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.

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 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. All health economic outcomes were considered as primary outcomes of the study.

Results: We identified 14 systematic reviews, 7 with a priori published protocols: 9 were of high 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 or 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: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9y2a7/.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信