Economic analysis of VenUS I, a randomized trial of two bandages for treating venous leg ulcers

British Journal of Surgery

Volumn 91, Issue 10, 2004, Pages 1300-1306

  Iglesias, C P ^b   Nelson, E A ^b   Cullum, N ^a   Torgerson, D J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BANDAGE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; FOUR LAYER COMPRESSION BANDAGE; HEALING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LEG COMPRESSION; LEG ULCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SHORT STRETCH COMPRESSION BANDAGE; SOCIAL WORK; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; ULCER HEALING; VENUS I STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BANDAGES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LEG ULCER; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 4944238240     PISSN: 00071323     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4755     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Callam MJ, Harper DR, Dale JJ, Ruckley CV. Chronic ulcer of the leg: clinical history. BMJ 1987; 294: 1389-1391.
2. Roe B, Cullum N, Hamer C. Patients' perceptions of chronic leg ulceration. In Leg Ulcers: Nursing Management: a Research-Based Guide, Cullum NA, Roe B (eds). Scutari Press: Harrow, 1995; 125-134.
3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Technical Guidance for Manufacturers and Sponsors on Making a Submission to a Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, 2001.
4. Nelson EA, Iglesias C, Cullum NA, Torgerson DJ on behalf of the VenUS I collaborators. Randomized clinical trial of four-layer and short-stretch compression bandages for venous leg ulcers (VenUS I). Br J Surg 2004; 91: 1292-1299.
5. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997.
6. Netten A, Curtis L. Unit Cost of Health and Social Care. Personal and Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent: Canterbury, 2001.
7. British Medical Association/Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary 42; September 2001. British Medical Association/Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: London, 2001.
8. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK General Population Survey. University of York Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper Series (no. 138). Centre for Health Economics: York, 1995.
9. Lin DY, Feuer EJ, Etzioni R, Wax Y. Estimating medical costs from incomplete follow-up data. Biometrics 1997; 53: 419-434.
10. Iglesias C, Torgerson DJ. Health economics. In Medicine in Society: Behavioural Sciences for Medical Students, Dowrick C (ed.). Arnold: London, 2001; 171-180.
11. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall: New York, 1993.
12. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95-104.
13. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1-134.
14. van Hout VA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Cost, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309-319.
15. Morrell CJ, Walters SJ, Dixon S, Collins KA, Brereton LM, Peters J et al. Cost effectiveness of community leg ulcer clinics: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998; 316: 1487-1491.
16. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341-364.