. 2015 Apr 22;13:90. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3

Table 7.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) outcomes for venous ulcers (n = 24)

CEA (Original year of values)	Treatment vs. Comparator	ICER summary/estimate [2013 US$]	Unit of effectiveness	Incremental cost [2013 US$]	Incremental effectiveness
Augustin 1999 (1989) [22]	Hydrocolloid dressing vs. Vaseline gauze dressing	Dominant	Ulcer-free week gained	−3,362	1.3
DePalma 1999 (1998) [23]	Thera-boot vs. Unna’s boot	Dominant	Ulcer-free week gained	−601	1.71
Glinski 1999 (1998) [24]	Micronized purified flavonoid fraction + SC vs. SC alone	Dominant^a	Additional wound healed	−714	0.19
Gordon 2006 (2005) [25]	Community leg club vs. community home nursing	488^a	Additional wound healed	Not reported	Not reported
Guest 2012^b (2010) [26]	NSBF vs. DBC	18^a	Percent additional reduction of ulcer area	146	8
Guest 2012^b (2010) [26]	NSBF vs. no skin protectant	1^a	Percent additional reduction of ulcer area	17	22
Guest 2012^b (2010) [26]	DBC vs. no skin protectant	Dominant^a	Percent additional reduction of ulcer area	−129	14
Iglesias 2006 (2004) [27]	Pentoxifylline plus compression vs. placebo plus compression	Dominant^a	QALY gained	−213	0.01
Iglesias 2004 (2001) [28]	Four-layer bandage vs. short-stretch bandage	Dominant^a	QALY gained	−566	0.02
Jull 2008 (2005) [29]	Manuka honey dressing vs. UC	Dominant^a,c	Additional wound healed	−48	0.06
Junger 2008 (2007) [30]	Low-frequency pulsed current (Dermapulse) vs. placebo	More costly & more effective^d	Percent additional reduction of ulcer area	Not reported	Not reported
Kerstein 2000^b (1995) [31]	Hydrocolloid dressing plus compression hosiery vs. Unna’s boot	Dominant	Additional wound healed	−6,748	0.18
Kerstein 2000^b (1995) [31]	Unna’s boot vs. saline gauze plus compression hosiery	More costly & more effective^d	Additional wound healed	Not reported	Not reported
Kikta 1988 (1987) [32]	Unna’s boot vs. hydrocolloid (DuoDERM)	Dominant^a	Additional wound healed	−209	0.32
Michaels 2009 (2007) [33]	Antimicrobial silver-donating dressings vs. low-adherent dressings	917,298^a	QALY gained	183	0.0002
Morrell 1998 (1995) [34]	Community leg ulcer clinics using four-layer compression bandaging vs. home nursing UC	7^a	Ulcer-free week gained	44	5.9
O’Brien 2003 (2000) [35]	Four-layer bandage vs. UC	Dominant^a	Increase in healing rate	−42	0.2
Oien 2001 (1997) [36]	Pinch grafting in primary care vs. pinch grafting in hospital	Cost saving & same effectiveness	Additional wound healed	−14,075	0
Sibbald 2001 (1997) [37]	Skin substitute (Apligraf) plus four-layer bandage vs. four-layer bandage only	6095^a	Additional wound healed	457	0.075
Taylor 1998 (1987) [38]	Four-layer high-compression bandaging vs. UC	Dominant^a	Additional wound healed	−659	0.095
Ukat 2003 (2002) [39]	Multilayer elastic bandaging (Profore) vs. short-stretch bandaging	Dominant^a	Additional wound healed	−1,198	0.08
Watson 2011 (2007) [40]	Ultrasound plus SC vs. SC alone	Dominated^a	QALY gained	371	−0.009
Pham 2012 (2009) [41]	Four-layer bandaging vs. short-stretch bandaging	43,918^a	QALY gained	395	0.009
Schonfeld 2000 (1996) [42]	Apligraf (Graftskin) vs. Unna’s Boot	Dominant^a	Ulcer-free month gained	−13,883	2.85
Simon 1996 (1993) [43]	Community leg ulcer clinic vs. UC clinic	Dominant	Additional wound healed	−1,826	0.22
Carr 1999 (1998) [44]	Four-layer compression bandaging (Profore) vs. UC	Dominant^a	Additional wound healed	−1,289	0.13
Guest 2009 (2007) [45]	Amelogenin plus compression therapy vs. compression therapy only	Dominant^a	QALY gained	−835	0.054

DBC, Durable barrier cream; ICER, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NSBF, No sting barrier film; QALY, Quality-adjusted life-year; SC, Standard care; UC, Usual care; US$, United States dollars.

^aDenotes the higher quality studies (Drummond score ≥8).

^bMultiple comparisons are reported.

^cICER was mostly due to an extra 3 patients hospitalized in control group… “probably due to random variation”. If remove these costs, the dominance is reversed in favor of UC.

^dUnable to calculate specific ICER for these 2 studies because the data was not reported for all treatment arms or presented in a figure only but the overall result (more costly & more effective) was reported.