Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment of chronic diabetic lower extremity ulcers with advanced therapies: a prospective, randomised, controlled, multi-centre comparative study examining clinical efficacy and cost

Zelen, Charles M, Serena, Thomas E, Gould, Lisa, Le, Lam, Carter, Marissa J, Keller, Jennifer, Li, William W·2016·International Wound Journal

Abstract

Advanced therapies such as bioengineered skin substitutes ( BSS ) and dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane ( dHACM ) have been shown to promote healing of chronic diabetic ulcers. An interim analysis of data from 60 patients enrolled in a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi‐centre clinical trial showed that dHACM ( EpiFix ®, MiMedx Group Inc., Marietta, GA ) is superior to standard wound care ( SWC ) and BSS (Apligraf®, Organogenesis, Inc., Canton, MA ) in achieving complete wound closure within 4–6 weeks. Rates and time to closure at a longer time interval and factors influencing outcomes remained unassessed; therefore, the study was continued in order to achieve at least 100 patients. With the larger cohort, we compare clinical outcomes at 12 weeks in 100 patients with chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers treated with weekly applications of Apligraf ( n = 33), EpiFix ( n = 32) or SWC ( n = 35) with collagen‐alginate dressing as controls. A Cox regression was performed to analyse the time to heal within 12 weeks, adjusting for all significant covariates. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was conducted to compare time‐to‐heal within 12 weeks for the three treatment groups. Clinical characteristics were well matched across study groups. The proportion of wounds achieving complete closure within the 12‐week study period were 73% (24/33), 97% (31/32), and 51% (18/35) for Apligraf, EpiFix and SWC , respectively (adjusted P = 0·00019). Subjects treated with EpiFix had a very significant higher probability of their wounds healing [hazard ratio ( HR : 5·66; adjusted P : 1·3 x 10 −7 ] compared to SWC alone. No difference in probability of healing was observed for the Apligraf and SWC groups. Patients treated with Apligraf were less likely to heal than those treated with EpiFix [ HR : 0·30; 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0·17–0·54; unadjusted P : 5·8 x 10 −5 ]. Increased wound size and presence of hypertension were significant factors that influenced healing. Mean time‐to‐heal within 12 weeks was 47·9 days (95% CI : 38·2–57·7) with Apligraf, 23·6 days (95% CI : 17·0–30·2) with EpiFix group and 57·4 days (95% CI : 48·2–66·6) with the SWC alone group (adjusted P = 3·2 x 10 −7 ). Median number of grafts used per healed wound were six (range 1–13) and 2·5 (range 1–12) for the Apligraf and EpiFix groups, respectively. Median graft cost was $8918 (range $1,486–19,323) per healed wound for the Apligraf group and $1,517 (range $434–25,710) per healed wound in the EpiFix group ( P < 0·0001). These results provide further evidence of the clinical and resource utilisation superiority of EpiFix compared to Apligraf for the treatment of lower extremity diabetic wounds.

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 · 10.1111/iwj.12566

Cites

2 of 2 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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.2337/dc13-0270 · DOI
  2. 10.2337/dc08-9021 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1742-4801.2005.00085.x · DOI
  4. 10.2337/dc12-2625 · DOI
  5. Snyder R, 2010, Wound percent area reduction and making decisions about utilizing advanced therapies, Podiatry Manage, 29, 197
  6. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2006.00176.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/S0891-8422(02)00018-6 · DOI
  8. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000288217.83128.f3 · DOI
  9. 10.1136/bmj.324.7330.160 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13169-8 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Pearson S, 2009, Implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods and impact, 55
  12. HoC TranK HuxM SibbaldG CampbellK. Artificial skin grafts in chronic wound care: a meta‐analysis of clinical efficacy and a review of cost‐effectiveness [Technology report no 52]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment 2005.
  13. 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1111/iwj.12097 · DOI
  15. Fetterolf DE, 2014, An evaluation of healing metrics associated with commonly used advanced wound care products for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers, Manag Care, 23, 31
  16. 10.1111/iwj.12395 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.9.470 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.7.347 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/iwj.12242 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/wrr.12332 · DOI
  22. 10.7547/8750-7315-104.6.555 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/wrr.12341 · DOI
  24. Werdin F, 2009, Evidence‐based management strategies for treatment of chronic wounds, Eplasty, 9, e19
  25. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000450831.65667.89 · DOI
  26. 10.1177/009885881303900401 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/ije/dyh299 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1186/1472-6963-9-115 · DOI
  29. 10.1345/aph.1R417 · DOI
  30. Lintzeris D, 2015, Use of a dehydrated amniotic membrane allograft on lower extremity ulcers in patients with challenging wounds: a retrospective case series, Ostomy Wound Manage, 61, 30
  31. 10.1111/iwj.12458 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/iwj.12140 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1002/jbm.b.33141 · DOI
  34. 10.1186/2045-824X-6-10 · DOI

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Zelen, C. M., Serena, T. E., Gould, L., Le, L., Carter, M. J., Keller, J., & Li, W. W.
Affiliations
  • Professional Education and Research Institute Roanoke VA USA
  • Serena Group Cambridge MA USA
  • Department of Plastic Surgery, Wound Recovery Center Kent Hospital Warwick RI USA
  • St. John Wound Care Tulsa OK USA
  • Strategic Solutions, Inc. Cody WY USA
  • Shenandoah Lower Extremity Research Troutville VA USA
  • The Angiogenesis Foundation Boston MA USA
Venue
International Wound Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-23
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
272-282
ISSN
  • 1742-4801
  • 1742-481X
Cited by
167
References
2
Language
en

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

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.