Cited by 132Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementWound Healing and TreatmentsHealthcare Quality and Management

Publicly reported wound healing rates: the fantasy and the reality.

Open access
Fife, Caroline E., Eckert, Kristen A., Carter, Marissa J.·2018·Advances in Wound Care

Abstract

Significance: We compare real-world data from the U.S. Wound Registry (USWR) with randomized controlled trials and publicly reported wound outcomes and develop criteria for honest reporting of wound outcomes, a requirement of the new Quality Payment Program (QPP). Recent Advances: Because no method has existed by which wounds could be stratified according to their likelihood of healing among real-world patients, practitioners have reported fantastically high healing rates. The USWR has developed several risk-stratified wound healing quality measures for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs) as part of its Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR). This allows practitioners to report DFU and VLU healing rates in comparison to the likelihood of whether the wound would have healed. Critical Issues: Under the new QPP, practitioners must report at least one practice-relevant outcome measure, and it must be risk adjusted so that clinicians caring for the sickest patients do not appear to have worse outcomes than their peers. The Wound Healing Index is a validated risk-stratification method that can predict whether a DFU or VLU will heal, leveling the playing field for outcome reporting and removing the need to artificially inflate healing rates. Wound care practitioners can report the USWR DFU and VLU risk-stratified outcome measure to satisfy the quality reporting requirements of the QPP. Future Directions: Per the requirements of the QPP, the USWR will begin publicly reporting of risk-stratified healing rates once quality measure data have met the reporting standards of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Some basic rules for data censoring are proposed for public reporting of healing rates, and others are needed, which should be decided by consensus among the wound care community.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/wound.2017.0743

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 1434 patients who were candidates for either surgery or endovascular treatment (71.8% had diabetes), surgical bypass appeared superior to endovascular therapy for major adverse limb events or death (42.6% vs 57.4%; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79).

    “In 1434 patients who were candidates for either surgery (including a singlesegment great saphenous vein for bypass) or endovascular treatment (71.8% had diabetes), surgical bypass appeared to be superior to endovascular therapy based on the risk of major adverse limb events, defined as major amputation or a major limb reintervention (repeat bypass graft, graft revision, thrombectomy, or thromboly”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [84]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [110]Healogics. 2015-Center-of-Excellence-Award-Press-Release-FINAL. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healogics.com%2FHome%2FLanding-Pages%2F2015-Center-of-Excellence-Award-press-release-FINA.doc (last accessed 3 23, 2017)
  2. [113]Ennis WJ, Lee C, Vargas M, Meneses P Wound outcomes from a single practice at a sub-acute wound care unit and two hospital-based, outpatient wound clinics. Wounds. 2004; 16: 164– 172

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fife, C. E., Eckert, K. A., & Carter, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Strategic Solutions, Inc.
Corresponding author
Fife, Caroline E.
Venue
Advances in Wound Care
Published
2018-03
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
77-94
ISSN
  • 2162-1918 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-1934
OpenAlex
W2759665824
Cited by
132
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Wound Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
wound healing rate, diabetic foot ulcer, venous leg ulcers, risk stratification, wound healing index, Quality Payment Program, data censoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review