Mepilex
DeviceMepilex Ag - dressing changes every 5-7 days, more frequently if needed
NCT Number: NCT00742183
The primary objective is to compare the incremental costs (direct and indirect) and benefits (healing outcomes, quality of life) of using foam silver dressing (Mepilex® Ag) to a Silver sulfadiazine 1% cream (Silvadene®) from the perspective of the health care provider.
The secondary objectives are to investigate the safety, the tolerance and the performance on burn status including pain.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me5 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
LA County Hospital & USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States
In- and/or out-patients at ten centers in the United States were included in this investigation. Subjects included were 5 years of age and older who suffered from partial thickness burns. Every patient was followed for 3 weeks.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Mepilex Ag - dressing changes every 5-7 days, more frequently if needed
Silvadene - dressing changes every day, more frequently if needed
Time frame: August 2008-August 2009
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated as the difference in total costs in each group divided by the difference in rate of full re-epithelialization (taken from the survival curve) at 20 days in each group (Δcosts/ Δeffects). Total costs were calculated based on the costs of primary and secondary dressings, silver sulphadiazine cream and estimated application, labor, supplies and pain medications. These costs were estimated from a representative sample of each population, across study facilities, using activity-based costing methods.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is interpreted as the price of additional health benefits. The ratio is supposed to be used by decision makers, in order for them to compare their willingness-to-pay for an additional health benefit with the pr
Molnlycke Health Care AB
Industry
An Open, Parallel, Randomized, Comparative, Multi-centre Investigation in US Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness, Efficacy, Safety and Tolerance of Mepilex® Ag Versus Silvadene® in the Treatment of Partial Thickness Burns.
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT01055587
Burns, Disease
Leipzig, Saxony, Germany
View Trial DetailsNCT07453732
Neurologic Manifestations, Pain
Aurora, Colorado, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06596434
Burns, Second Degree Burn
Tucson, Arizona, United States
View Trial Details