电刺激治疗压力损伤:一项健康技术评估。

Q1 Medicine Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2017-11-08 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01
{"title":"电刺激治疗压力损伤:一项健康技术评估。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressure injuries (bedsores) are common and reduce quality of life. They are also costly and difficult to treat. This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and lived experience of adding electrical stimulation to standard wound care for pressure injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search for studies published to December 7, 2016, limited to randomized and non-randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of electrical stimulation plus standard wound care versus standard wound care alone for patients with pressure injuries. We assessed the quality of evidence through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). In addition, we conducted an economic literature review and a budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and affordability of electrical stimulation for treatment of pressure ulcers in Ontario. Given uncertainties in clinical evidence and resource use, we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about their experiences with pressure injuries, currently available treatments, and (if applicable) electrical stimulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials and two non-randomized controlled trials were found from the systematic search. There was no significant difference in complete pressure injury healing between adjunct electrical stimulation and standard wound care. There was a significant difference in wound surface area reduction favouring electrical stimulation compared with standard wound care.The only study on cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation was partially applicable to the patient population of interest. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation cannot be determined. We estimate that the cost of publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries would be $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.Patients and caregivers reported that pressure injuries were burdensome and reduced their quality of life. Patients and caregivers also noted that electrical stimulation seemed to reduce the time it took the wounds to heal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While electrical stimulation is safe to use (GRADE quality of evidence: high) there is uncertainty about whether it improves wound healing (GRADE quality of evidence: low). In Ontario, publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries could result in extra costs of $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"17 14","pages":"1-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700239/pdf/ohtas-17-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electrical Stimulation for Pressure Injuries: A Health Technology Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressure injuries (bedsores) are common and reduce quality of life. They are also costly and difficult to treat. This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and lived experience of adding electrical stimulation to standard wound care for pressure injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search for studies published to December 7, 2016, limited to randomized and non-randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of electrical stimulation plus standard wound care versus standard wound care alone for patients with pressure injuries. We assessed the quality of evidence through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). In addition, we conducted an economic literature review and a budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and affordability of electrical stimulation for treatment of pressure ulcers in Ontario. Given uncertainties in clinical evidence and resource use, we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about their experiences with pressure injuries, currently available treatments, and (if applicable) electrical stimulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials and two non-randomized controlled trials were found from the systematic search. There was no significant difference in complete pressure injury healing between adjunct electrical stimulation and standard wound care. There was a significant difference in wound surface area reduction favouring electrical stimulation compared with standard wound care.The only study on cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation was partially applicable to the patient population of interest. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation cannot be determined. We estimate that the cost of publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries would be $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.Patients and caregivers reported that pressure injuries were burdensome and reduced their quality of life. Patients and caregivers also noted that electrical stimulation seemed to reduce the time it took the wounds to heal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While electrical stimulation is safe to use (GRADE quality of evidence: high) there is uncertainty about whether it improves wound healing (GRADE quality of evidence: low). In Ontario, publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries could result in extra costs of $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"volume\":\"17 14\",\"pages\":\"1-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700239/pdf/ohtas-17-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:压伤(褥疮)是常见的,降低生活质量。它们也很昂贵且难以治疗。本卫生技术评估评估了在压力性损伤的标准伤口护理中增加电刺激的有效性、成本效益、预算影响和生活经验。方法:我们对截至2016年12月7日发表的研究进行了系统检索,限于随机和非随机对照试验,研究电刺激加标准伤口护理与单独标准伤口护理对压伤患者的有效性。我们通过推荐评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)来评估证据的质量。此外,我们进行了经济文献综述和预算影响分析,以评估安大略省电刺激治疗压疮的成本效益和可负担性。考虑到临床证据和资源使用的不确定性,我们没有进行初步的经济评估。最后,我们对患者和护理人员进行了定性访谈,了解他们的压力损伤经历、目前可用的治疗方法和(如果适用)电刺激。结果:系统检索得到9项随机对照试验和2项非随机对照试验。辅助电刺激与标准创面护理在完全压伤愈合方面无显著差异。与标准伤口护理相比,电刺激在伤口表面积减少方面有显著差异。唯一关于电刺激成本效益的研究部分适用于感兴趣的患者群体。因此,电刺激的成本效益无法确定。我们估计,在未来5年内,公共资助电刺激治疗压力损伤的成本将为每年0.77至385万美元。患者和护理人员报告说,压力损伤是负担,降低了他们的生活质量。患者和护理人员也注意到,电刺激似乎缩短了伤口愈合的时间。结论:虽然电刺激是安全的(证据质量等级:高),但它是否能改善伤口愈合还不确定(证据质量等级:低)。在安大略省,在未来5年内,公共资助的电刺激治疗压力损伤可能会导致每年0.77至385万美元的额外费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Electrical Stimulation for Pressure Injuries: A Health Technology Assessment.

Background: Pressure injuries (bedsores) are common and reduce quality of life. They are also costly and difficult to treat. This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and lived experience of adding electrical stimulation to standard wound care for pressure injuries.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search for studies published to December 7, 2016, limited to randomized and non-randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of electrical stimulation plus standard wound care versus standard wound care alone for patients with pressure injuries. We assessed the quality of evidence through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). In addition, we conducted an economic literature review and a budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and affordability of electrical stimulation for treatment of pressure ulcers in Ontario. Given uncertainties in clinical evidence and resource use, we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about their experiences with pressure injuries, currently available treatments, and (if applicable) electrical stimulation.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials and two non-randomized controlled trials were found from the systematic search. There was no significant difference in complete pressure injury healing between adjunct electrical stimulation and standard wound care. There was a significant difference in wound surface area reduction favouring electrical stimulation compared with standard wound care.The only study on cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation was partially applicable to the patient population of interest. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation cannot be determined. We estimate that the cost of publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries would be $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.Patients and caregivers reported that pressure injuries were burdensome and reduced their quality of life. Patients and caregivers also noted that electrical stimulation seemed to reduce the time it took the wounds to heal.

Conclusions: While electrical stimulation is safe to use (GRADE quality of evidence: high) there is uncertainty about whether it improves wound healing (GRADE quality of evidence: low). In Ontario, publicly funding electrical stimulation for pressure injuries could result in extra costs of $0.77 to $3.85 million yearly for the next 5 years.

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
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment. Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Stress Urinary Incontinence, Fecal Incontinence, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Health Technology Assessment. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment. Sucrose Octasulfate-Impregnated Dressings for Adults With Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1