A systematic review of economic evaluations assessing interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers.

Background: Pressure ulcers have an adverse impact on patients and can also result in additional costs and workload for healthcare providers. Interventions to prevent pressure ulcers are focused on identifying at risk patients and using systems such as mattresses and turning to relieve pressure. Treatments for pressure ulcers are directed towards promoting wound healing and symptom relief. Both prevention and treatments have associated costs for healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to systematically review the economic evidence for prevention and treatment interventions for pressure ulcers.

Design: A systematic review of comparative clinical studies that evaluate interventions to either prevent or treat pressure ulcers.

Data Sources: Searches of the major electronic databases were conducted to identify citations that reported costs or economic analysis for interventions directed towards prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Only comparative clinical studies were included. Review articles, case-series, non-randomised studies, and studies in a foreign language that did not have an abstract in English were excluded from the review.

Review Methods: Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion were based on a consensus of the authors after review of the title or abstract. Potential citations were obtained for more detailed review and assessed against the inclusion criteria. The studies identified for inclusion were assessed against the 24 key criteria contained in the CHEERS checklist. Costs were standardised to US dollars and adjusted for inflation to 2012 rates.

Results: The searches identified 105 potential studies. After review of the citations a total of 23 studies were included: 12 examined prevention interventions and 11 treatments. Review against the CHEERS criteria showed that the majority of included trials had poor reporting and a lack of detail regarding how costs were calculated. Few studies reported more than aggregate costs of treatments with only a small number reporting unit cost outcomes.

Conclusions: Existing evidence was poor in regard to the economic evaluation of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Much of the published literature had poor reporting quality when compared to guidelines which provide key criteria for studies to adequately examine costs within an economic analysis.