...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association >An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream.
【24h】

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream.

机译:一项开放,平行,随机,比较性,多中心研究,以评估含银的柔软有机硅泡沫敷料(干预)与磺胺嘧啶银乳膏的成本效益,性能,耐受性和安全性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study was implemented to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Ag) vs silver sulfadiazine cream (control) in the treatment of partial-thickness thermal burns. Individuals aged 5 years and older with partial-thickness thermal burns (2.5-20% BSA) were randomized into two groups and treated with the trial products for 21 days or until healed, whichever occurred first. Data were obtained and analyzed on cost (direct and indirect), healing rates, pain, comfort, ease of product use, and adverse events. A total of 101 subjects were recruited. There were no significant differences in burn area profiles within the groups. The cost of dressing-related analgesia was lower in the intervention group (P = .03) as was the cost of background analgesia (P = .07). The mean total cost of treatment was Dollars 309 vs Dollars 513 in the control (P < .001). The average cost-effectiveness per treatment regime was Dollars 381 lower in the intervention product, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Dollars 1688 in favor of the soft silicone foam dressing. Mean healing rates were 71.7 vs 60.8% at final visit, and the number of dressing changes were 2.2 vs 12.4 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Subjects reported significantly less pain at application (P = .02) and during wear (P = .048) of the Mepilex Ag dressing in the acute stages of wound healing. Clinicians reported the intervention dressing was significantly easier to use (P = .03) and flexible (P = .04). Both treatments were well tolerated; however, the total incidence of adverse events was higher in the control group. The silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing was as effective in the treatment of patients as the standard care (silver sulfadiazine). In addition, the group of patients treated with the soft silicone foam dressing demonstrated decreased pain and lower costs associated with treatment.
机译:进行了一项开放,平行,随机,比较性,多中心研究,以评估含银的柔软有机硅泡沫敷料(Mepilex Ag)与磺胺嘧啶银乳膏(对照组)的成本效益,性能,耐受性和安全性。局部热灼伤。将5岁及以上的部分厚度热灼伤(2.5-20%BSA)的患者随机分为两组,并用试验产品治疗21天或直至until愈,以先到者为准。获取并分析有关成本(直接和间接),治愈率,疼痛,舒适度,产品使用方便性和不良事件的数据。总共招募了101名受试者。各组的烧伤面积概貌无显着差异。干预组的敷料相关镇痛费用较低(P = .03),本底镇痛费用也较低(P = .07)。平均总治疗费用为309美元,对照组为513美元(P <.001)。介入治疗产品中每个治疗方案的平均成本效益降低了381美元,从而增加了成本效益比,增加了1688美元,有利于使用柔软的有机硅泡沫敷料。最终访视的平均治愈率分别为71.7和60.8%,治疗组和对照组的换药次数分别为2.2和12.4。受试者报告,在伤口愈合的急性期,使用美必利士Ag敷料时(穿着时(P = .02)和穿着期间(P = .048))疼痛明显减轻。临床医生报告说,介入敷料使用起来更容易(P = .03)且灵活(P = .04)。两种疗法的耐受性都很好。但是,对照组中不良事件的总发生率较高。含银的柔软有机硅泡沫敷料在治疗患者方面与标准护理(磺胺嘧啶银)一样有效。另外,用软的硅酮泡沫敷料治疗的患者组表现出疼痛减轻和与治疗有关的成本降低。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号