Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

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 access
Guest, Julian F, Fuller, Graham W, Vowden, Peter·2018·International Wound Journal

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/iwj.12814

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 233

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.