Cited by 39Pressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nutritional support for the prevention of pressure ulcers in high-risk hospitalized patients

Tuffaha, Haitham W., Roberts, Shelley, Chaboyer, Wendy, Gordon, Louisa G., Scuffham, Paul A.·2016·Advances in Skin & Wound Care

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutritional support compared with standard care in preventing pressure ulcers (PrUs) in high-risk hospitalized patients. Design An economic model using data from a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of nutritional support in reducing the incidence of PrUs was conducted. Patients Modeled cohort of hospitalized patients at high risk of developing PrUs and malnutrition simulated during their hospital stay and up to 1 year. Interventions Standard care included PrU prevention strategies, such as redistribution surfaces, repositioning, and skin protection strategies, along with standard hospital diet. In addition to the standard care, the intervention group received nutritional support comprising patient education, nutrition goal setting, and the consumption of high-protein supplements. Main outcomes measures The analysis was from a healthcare payer perspective. Key outcomes of the model included the average costs and quality-adjusted life years. Model results were tested in univariate sensitivity analyses, and decision uncertainty was characterized using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Main results Compared with standard care, nutritional support was cost saving at AU $425 per patient and marginally more effective with an average 0.005 quality-adjusted life years gained. The probability of nutritional support being cost-effective was 87%. Conclusions Nutritional support…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.asw.0000482992.87682.4c

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 a meta-analysis of RCTs on hospitalized patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers, by Tuffaha et al., provision of nutritional support resulted in a cost saving of 425 $ per patient and a marginal improvement of quality adjusted life years of 0.005, compared to usual care.

    “Positive results were also reported in a meta-analysis of RCTs on hospitalized patients at high risk of developing pressure ulcers, by Tuffaha et al.Provision of nutritional support resulted in a cost saving of 425 $ per patient and a marginal improvement of quality adjusted life years of 0.005, compared to the usual care [48] (Level of evidence 1þþ).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tuffaha, H. W., Roberts, S., Chaboyer, W., Gordon, L. G., & Scuffham, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Ministry of Health (SG)
Venue
Advances in Skin & Wound Care
Published
2016-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
261-267
ISSN
1527-7941 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2361145472
Cited by
39
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Skin & Wound Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
pressure ulcer prevention, nutritional support, cost-effectiveness, hospitalized patients, malnutrition, quality-adjusted life years, hospital costs, patient education
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Australia, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Prevention, Retrospective Studies, Sex Factors, Cohort Studies, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Nutritional Support, Risk Assessment, Models, Economic

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