Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Clinical Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of the Vacuum-Assisted Closure Technique in the Management of Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Braakenburg, Assa, Obdeijn, Miryam C., Feitz, Reinier, van Rooij, Iris A. L. M., van Griethuysen, Arjanne J., Klinkenbijl, Jean H. G.·2006·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a relatively new concept described in the literature that increases wound-healing capacity. The authors aimed to investigate the effect of vacuum-assisted closure therapy on wound healing, granulation tissue formation, bacterial clearance, pain, time involvement of the staff, and total costs in all types of wounds in comparison with modern wound dressings. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with a chronic or acute wound were randomized to initial treatment with vacuum-assisted closure or modern dressings. The authors' primary endpoint was a granulated wound or a wound ready for skin grafting or healing by secondary intention. RESULTS: The time to the primary endpoint with vacuum-assisted closure therapy was not significantly shorter, except for patients with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetics. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy did not result in significantly faster granulation or wound surface reduction or better bacterial clearance, but patient comfort was an important advantage. Time involvement and costs of nursing staff were significantly lower for the vacuum-assisted closure therapy, but overall costs were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: With vacuum-assisted closure therapy, wound healing is at least as fast as with modern wound dressings. Especially cardiovascular and diabetic patients benefit from this therapy. The total costs of vacuum-assisted closure are comparable to those of modern wound dressings, but the advantage is its comfort for patients and nursing staff.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/01.prs.0000227675.63744.af

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Braakenburg, A., Obdeijn, M. C., Feitz, R., van Rooij, I. A. L. M., van Griethuysen, A. J., & Klinkenbijl, J. H. G.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2006-08
Volume
118
Issue
2
Pages
390-397
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2172111225
Cited by
317
References
17
FWCI
15.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Clinical Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of the Vacuum-Assisted Closure Technique in the Management of Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.prs.0000227675.63744.af
The paper
Braakenburg, A., Obdeijn, M. C., Feitz, R., van Rooij, I. A. L. M., van Griethuysen, A. J., & Klinkenbijl, J. H. G. (2006). The Clinical Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of the Vacuum-Assisted Closure Technique in the Management of Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000227675.63744.af

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.