Eliot Mostow1, Jon D Montemayor2, Sean Pittinger3, Stephannie Miller1, Kimberly N Blasiole1, Judith Fulton1. 1. Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center, Akron General Medical Center , Akron, Ohio. 2. Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center, Akron General Medical Center , Akron, Ohio. ; Department of Biology, The University of Akron , Akron, Ohio. 3. Wound Healing and Limb Preservation Center, Akron General Medical Center , Akron, Ohio. ; Department of Mathematics, Boston College , Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a tool to assist in the evaluation of treatment options based on clinically relevant parameters, thus enabling clinicians to heal patients more efficiently. Approach: Outlined here is the prototypic model of a comprehensive analysis tool to compare products by category, accounting for product characteristics, effectiveness data from literature, costs, and patient needs or clinician preferences. Results: The tool is demonstrated with a venous leg ulcer example, and ideas for expanding the tool in the future are provided. Innovation: Although this is a simple model, the authors believe that it provides a valid and useful platform for comparing similar products of a given type using available information and reflecting real-world use to give a practical approach to clinical decision-making. Conclusion: Future funding for comprehensive, comparative effectiveness studies should provide clarity on which products to choose for specific applications. Meanwhile, tools like this can provide guidance, and can be modified to accommodate varying circumstances.
Objective: To develop a tool to assist in the evaluation of treatment options based on clinically relevant parameters, thus enabling clinicians to heal patients more efficiently. Approach: Outlined here is the prototypic model of a comprehensive analysis tool to compare products by category, accounting for product characteristics, effectiveness data from literature, costs, and patient needs or clinician preferences. Results: The tool is demonstrated with a venous leg ulcer example, and ideas for expanding the tool in the future are provided. Innovation: Although this is a simple model, the authors believe that it provides a valid and useful platform for comparing similar products of a given type using available information and reflecting real-world use to give a practical approach to clinical decision-making. Conclusion: Future funding for comprehensive, comparative effectiveness studies should provide clarity on which products to choose for specific applications. Meanwhile, tools like this can provide guidance, and can be modified to accommodate varying circumstances.