Burn care is traditionally considered expensive care. However, detailed information about the costs of burn care is scarce despite the increased need for this information and the enhanced focus on healthcare cost control. In this study, economic literature on burn care was systematically reviewed to examine the problem of burn-related costs. Cost or economic evaluation studies on burn care that had been published in international peer-reviewed journals from 1950 to 2012 were identified. The methodology of these articles was critically appraised by two reviewers, and cost results were extracted. A total of 156 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all of the studies were cost studies (n = 153) with a healthcare perspective (n = 139) from high-income countries (n = 127). Hospital charges were often used as a proxy for costs (n = 44). Three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. The mean total healthcare cost per burn patient in high-income countries was $88,218 (range $704-$717,306; median $44,024). A wide variety of methodological approaches and cost prices was found. We recommend that cost studies and economic evaluations employ a standard approach to improve the quality and harmonization of economic evaluation studies, optimize comparability, and improve insight into burn care costs and efficiency.

The laser Doppler imager is used in cases of indeterminate burn depth to accurately predict wound healing time at an early stage. The laser Doppler imager classifies burns into three estimated healing potentials as follows: high, <14 days; intermediate, 14-21 days; and low, >21 days. At this time, the relationship between these healing potentials and long-term scar quality is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term scar quality of burns with three distinct healing potentials. The secondary objectives were to compare treatment strategies in intermediate wounds, to study the effect of the timing of surgery on low healing potential wounds and to identify predictors of reduced scar quality. Hence, in a prospective cohort study, scar quality was determined in patients whose burns were assessed with laser Doppler imaging. Scar Quality was assessed with objective and subjective measurement tools, including overall scar quality (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale) as a primary outcome and color and elasticity parameters. A total of 141 patients (>19 months postburn) with 216 scars were included. Wounds with high and intermediate healing potential did not significantly differ regarding scar quality. Wounds with a low healing potential had a significantly lower scar quality. Analysis of 76 surgically treated low healing potential wounds showed no significant differences in the primary outcome regarding the timing of surgery (≤14 days vs. >14). Predictors of reduced long-term scar quality were darker skin type and multiple surgeries. In conclusion, scar quality was strongly related to the healing potential category. Scar quality was very similar in high and intermediate healing potential wounds. No positive effects were found on scar quality or on healing time in surgically treated wounds with intermediate healing potential, advocating a conservative approach. Further studies should focus on the optimal timing of surgery in low healing potential wounds.

There were no external sources of funding for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare with regard to the manuscript or its content.

Objectives: Chronic idiopathic (or spontaneous) urticaria (CIU) is estimated to occur in 0.3% of the general population in Turkey. Although the burden of the disease is substantial for the payer, there has been no cost-analysis performed in our country. The purposes of this study are to determine the resources and costs related to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CIU, and to estimate the annual economic burden to the Social Security Institution (SGK). MethOds: Delphi technique was applied to determine the type and the amount of resources used in different stages of CIU defined as mild or moderate to severe based on physicians clinical assessment. The Delphi method solicits the opinion of an expert panel through a carefully designed questionnaire which in this case included questions on: epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment of symptoms and angioedema, adverse events, follow-up visits, hospital and emergency service admissions. The responses were analysed and discussed in a face to face meeting followed by consensus building steps. Unit of resources used for different CIU severity levels were determined from expert opinion. Unit costs of resources used in outpatient clinics were obtained from SGK's Reimbursement Guideline-List of Procedure Fees Per Service. Results: Hospitalizations, emergency admissions, outpatient visits and treatments, are the key cost drivers in the management of CIU The annual cost per patient is calculated to be 725.36 Turkish Liras (TL) for mild CIU, 1.322,61 TL for moderate CIU and 2,478.75 TL for severe CIU. The total annual cost of CIU to SGK is estimated to be 262 million TL in 2014. cOnclusiOns: This is the first study that aims to estimate the resource utilisation and cost burden of CIU in Turkey by using the Delphi technique. Cost effective treatment of CIU is an unmet need given the heavy burden to SGK identified by the Delphi Panel.

No abstract

Objectives: In patients with burns an early accurate diagnosis of burn depth is essential to determine optimal treatment. The combination of Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and clinical assessment leads to an accurate estimate of burn depth. However, the actual effects of the introduction of LDI on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and costs are unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI in burn care. The effects of LDI on decision-making, clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness were assessed. MethOds: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres, including subsequent patients with burns of indeterminate depth. In the standard care (SC) group, burn depth and treatment choices were based on clinical assessment only, in the other group (LDI) clinical assessment and LDI results were combined. Primary outcome was the effect of the introduction of LDI on wound healing time. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a bottom up approach, following the micro-costing method. Results: Mean time to wound healing from randomisation was 14.3 days in the LDI group and 15.5 days in the SC group (p= 0.258). In the subgroup of clinical patients requiring surgery earlier decision for surgery and a shorter wound healing time were observed in the LDI group (16.0 versus 19.9 days, p= 0.029). Mean total costs per patient were € 18 549 versus € 18 896 (p= 0.837). cOnclusiOns: LDI proved to provide guidance for therapeutic decisions with a significantly shorter wound healing time in the subgroup of clinical patients requiring surgery. When time to surgery can be reduced by 2.4 days, similar to the time to decision for surgery in our study, cost savings of € 794 per scanned patient can be achieved.

BackgroundEarly accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment, which is the least expensive, but not the most accurate.Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. The actual effect on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and the costs of the introduction of this device, however, are unknown. Before we decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care, a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary.Methods/designA multicenter randomised controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centres: Beverwijk, Groningen and Rotterdam. All patients treated as outpatient or admitted to a burn centre within 5 days post burn, with burns of indeterminate depth (burns not obviously superficial or full thickness) and a total body surface area burned of ≤ 20% are eligible. A total of 200 patients will be included. Burn depth will be diagnosed by both clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging between 2–5 days post burn in all patients. Subsequently, patients are randomly divided in two groups: ‘new diagnostic strategy’ versus ‘current diagnostic strategy’. The results of the LDI-scan will only be provided to the treating clinician in the ‘new diagnostic strategy’ group. The main endpoint is the effect of LDI on wound healing time.In addition we measure: a) the effect of LDI on other patient outcomes (quality of life, scar quality), b) the effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and c) the effect of LDI on total (medical and non-medical) costs and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThis trial will contribute to our current knowledge on the use of LDI in burn care and will provide evidence on its cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationNCT01489540

No abstract