Modelling the cost implications of using carboxymethylcellulose dressing compared with gauze in the management of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention in the US and UK

References

• Bale S, Jones V. Wound Care Nursing: A Patient-Centred Approach. London: Baillière Tindall, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Nathan CF. Secretory products of macrophages. J Clin Invest 1987;79:319–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tortora GJ, Grabowski SR. Principles of anatomy and physiology. New York: Harper Collins Publications, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Eckersley JR, Dudley HA. Wounds and wound healing. Br Med Bull 1988;44:423–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks J, Hughes LE, Harding KG. Prediction of healing time as an aid to the management of open granulating wounds. World J Surg 1983;7:641–5
   Google Scholar
• Dealey C, editor. The care of wounds a guide for nurses. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Science, 1999
   Google Scholar
• Thomas S. Wound management and dressings. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 1990
   Google Scholar
• Iriondo M. Healing by second intention. In: Wheeland RG, editor. Cutaneous surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1994. p.892–900
   Google Scholar
• Bolton L, van Rijswijk L. Wound dressings: meeting clinical and biological needs. Dermatol Nurs 1991;3:146–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Turner TD. Which dressing and why? In: Westaby S, editor. Wound Care. London: Heinemann, 1985
   Google Scholar
• Hollinworth H, Collier M. Nurses’ views about pain and trauma at dressing changes: results of a national survey. J Wound Care 2000;9:369–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Foster L, Moore P. The application of a cellulose based fibre dressing in surgical wounds. J Wound Care 1997;6:469–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore PJ, Foster I. Cost benefit of two dressings in the management of surgical wounds. Br J Nurs 2000;9:1128–32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricci E, Aloesio R, Cassino R, et al. Foam dressing versus gauze soaks in the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. In: Leaper D, editor. European Wound Management Association Spring Meeting; 1997; Milan, Italy. London: Macmillan Magazines; 1998. p.118
   Google Scholar
• Guillotreau J, Andre J, Flandrin P, et al. Calcium alginate and povidone iodine packs in the management of infected postoperative wounds: results of a randomized study. Br J Surg 1996;83:861 [abstract]
   Google Scholar
• Meyer LJM. Randomized comparative study of Cutinova cavity for the treatment of secondary healing wounds after abdominal surgery and abscess cavities in comparison to traditional therapy. In: 7th Annual Meeting of the European Tissue Repair Society; 1997; Koln, Germany
   Google Scholar
• Walker AJ, Shouler PJ, Leicester RJ. Comparison between Eusol and silastic foam dressing in postoperative management of pilonidal sinus. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1991;36:105–6
   Google Scholar
• Williams RH, Wood RA, Mason MC, et al. Multicentre prospective trial of Silastic foam dressing in management of open granulating wounds. BMJ 1981;282:21–2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macfie J, McMahon MJ. The management of open perineal wound using a foam elastomer dressing: a prospective clinical trial. Br J Surg 1980;67:85–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goode AW, Glazer G, Ellis BW. The cost effectiveness of dextranomer and Eusol in the treatment of infected surgical wounds. Br J Clin Pract 1979;33:325–8
   Google Scholar
• Cannavo M, Fairbrother G, Owen D, et al. A comparison of dressings in the management of surgical abdominal wounds. J Wound Care 1998;7:57–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drug Topics Redbook 2003. ISBN:1–56363–452-x. Published by Medical Economics, 2000
   Google Scholar
• National Physician Fee Schedule 2003. Relative Value File [online]. Available from http://cms.hhs.gov/providers/pufdownload/default.asp#pfsrelative
   Google Scholar
• National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses 2000 [online]. Available from http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/rnsurvey/rnss1.htm
   Google Scholar
• Medicare Cost Reports 2003 [online]. Available from http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/
   Google Scholar
• Wisdomking 2003 [online]. Available from http::/www.wisdomking.com
   Google Scholar
• Sennett C. Defining and measuring costs. In: Grady ML, Weis KA, editors. Cost analysis methodology for clinical practice guidelines. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1995 Mar. AHCPR Pub No 95–0001, 1995
   Google Scholar
• British National Formulary 2003 [online]. Available from http://www.bnf.org
   Google Scholar
• Netten A, Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2002 [online]. Available from http://www.pssru.ac.uk/UC2002.htm
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Human Services. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics. 2003;332
   Google Scholar
• Hospital Episode Statistics 192000/02. Department of Health (UK) 2003
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. 1980. p.228–65
   Google Scholar
• Dowsett C. The management of surgical wounds in a community setting. Br J Community Nurs 2002;7\(Suppl. 6):33–8
   Google Scholar
• Dziewulski P, James S, Taylor D, et al. Modern dressings: healing surgical wounds by secondary intention. Hosp Med 2003;64:543–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest JF, Ruiz FJ, Mihai A, et al. Cost effectiveness of using carboxymethylcellulose dressing compared with gauze in the management of exuding venous leg ulcers in Germany and the US. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:81–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn SM, Lopez PP, Brown M, et al. Open surgical wounds: how does Aquacel compare with wet-to-dry gauze? Wound Care 2004;13:10–2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moffatt CJ, Franks PJ, Hollinworth H. Understanding wound pain and trauma: an international perspective. In: Calne S, Editor. EWMA Position Document: Pain at wound dressing changes. Medical Education Press, 2002. p.2–7
   Google Scholar
• Hermans MH. Clinical benefit of a hydrocolloid dressing in closed surgical wounds. J ET Nurs 1993;20:68–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lewis R, Whiting P, ter Riet G, et al. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Health Tech Assess 2001;5:1–131
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Capasso VA, Munro BH. The cost and efficacy of two wound treatments. AORN J 2003;77:984–1004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar