The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to estimate the patterns of care and annual levels of health care resource use attributable to managing venous leg ulcers (VLUs) in clinical practice by the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and the associated costs of patient management. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the records of 505 patients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database. Patients' characteristics, wound‐related health outcomes and health care resource use were quantified, and the total NHS cost of patient management was estimated at 2015/2016 prices. Overall, 53% of all VLUs healed within 12 months, and the mean time to healing was 3·0 months. 13% of patients were never prescribed any recognised compression system, and 78% of their wounds healed. Of the 87% who were prescribed a recognised compression system, 52% of wounds healed. Patients were predominantly managed in the community by nurses with minimal clinical involvement of specialist clinicians. Up to 30% of all the VLUs may have been clinically infected at the time of presentation, and only 22% of patients had an ankle brachial pressure index documented in their records. The mean NHS cost of wound care over 12 months was an estimated £7600 per VLU. However, the cost of managing an unhealed VLU was 4·5 times more than that of managing a healed VLU (£3000 per healed VLU and £13 500 per unhealed VLU). This study provides important insights into a number of aspects of VLU management in clinical practice that have been difficult to ascertain from other studies and provides the best estimate available of NHS resource use and costs with which to inform policy and budgetary decisions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Bergan, J. J., Schmid-Schönbein, G. W., Smith, P. D. C., Nicolaides, A. N., Boisseau, M. R., & Eklof, B. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra055289 · Cited by 933
Cited by
Implementing TIMERS: the race against hard-to-heal wounds
Atkin, L., Bućko, Z., Montero, E. C., Cutting, K., Moffatt, C., Probst, A., Romanelli, M., Schultz, G. S., & Tettelbach, W. (2019) · Journal of Wound Care · doi:10.12968/jowc.2019.28.sup3a.s1 · Cited by 369
Bobbink, P., Pugliese, M.-T., Larkin, P., & Probst, S. (2020) · Journal of Tissue Viability · doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2020.08.006 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Guest, J. F., Fuller, G. W., & Vowden, P.
- Venue
- International Wound Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-12-15
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-37
- ISSN
- 1742-4801 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-481X
- OpenAlex
- W2775189905
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/iwj.12814
- The paper
- Guest, J. F., Fuller, G. W., & Vowden, P. (2018). Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12814
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.