Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: Cost effectiveness analysis

British Medical Journal

Volumn 332, Issue 7555, 2006, Pages 1416-1418

  Iglesias, Cynthia ^a   Nixon, Jane ^b   Cranny, Gillian ^a   Nelson, E Andrea ^b   Hawkins, Kim ^b   Phillips, Angela ^b   Torgerson, David ^a   Mason, Su ^b   Cullum, Nicky ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALTERNATING PRESSURE MATTRESS; ALTERNATING PRESSURE OVERLAY; ARTICLE; BED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECUBITUS; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; LENGTH OF STAY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; AGED; BEDDING AND LINENS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MIDDLE AGED; PRESSURE ULCER;

EID: 33745305404     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38850.711435.7C     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Pressure ulcer prevention: pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention, including the use of pressure-relieving devices (beds, mattresses and overlays) for the prevention of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care. NICE clinical guideline. 2003;7.
2. Nixon J, Cranny G, Iglesias C, Nelson FA Hawkins K, Phillips A, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial. BMJ 2006;332;1413-5.
3. Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ 2000;320:1197-200.
4. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004.
6. Lindsey JK, Jones B. Choosing among generalized linear models applied to medical data. Stat Med 1998;17:59-68.
7. Barber JA, Thomson SG. Multiple regression of cost data: use of generalised linear models. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9:197-204.
8. Mihaylova B, Briggs A, Armitage J, Parish S, Gray A, Gollins R. Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: economic analysis of a randomised trial in 20,536 individuals. Lancet 2005;365:1779-85.
9. Baumgarten M, Margolis D, Berlin JA, Strom BL, Garino J, Kagan SH, et al. Risk factors for pressure ulcers among elderly hip fracture patients. Wound Repair Regen 2003;11:96-103.
10. Fleurence RL. Cost-effectiveness of pressure-relieving devices for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:334-41.
11. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405-15.