Analytical approach:
The economic evaluation was based on a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial, with 60 patients with 72 second-degree burn wounds. Patients were followed-up until complete wound epithelialisation (skin covering). The authors did not state the perspective.
Effectiveness data:
The primary measures of effectiveness were time to wound healing, and pain during and between dressing changes. Wound healing was assessed, using digital photographs, by two experienced wound specialists. Pain was measured on a 10-point visual analogue scale, immediately after dressing change, for pain during dressing change, and immediately before dressing change, for pain in between dressing changes. Wounds were assessed for differences in fibrin and colour in the wound bed. Patients and wound specialists were asked which treatment they preferred. Randomisation was by computer. Patients and therapists could not be blinded to allocation, but those who assessed wound healing were. Two patients with multiple burns were randomised to each treatment. Patient characteristics – gender, age, wound size, wound location, and cause of burn – were reported for each group.
Monetary benefit and utility valuations:
Not relevant.
Measure of benefit:
The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the measures of benefit: the time to wound healing, and pain during and between dressing changes.
Cost data:
The costs were calculated for materials and personnel, for wound dressing changes up to the median day of complete wound epithelialisation. The costs were the billable service prices from a large German health insurer, for wound dressing. The calculation method was from a published German paper. Costs were reported in Euros (EUR).
Analysis of uncertainty:
The differences in pain outcomes, for the interventions, were assessed for statistical significance.