Clinical and Economic Impact of Wound Care Using a Polyurethane Foam Multilayer Dressing.

The study was a before-after observational study with no randomisation and no separate control group, so other changes in care or natural wound healing could have affected the results. Baseline data on previous dressings and wound characteristics were collected retrospectively, and the decision to switch was based on clinician judgment. The foam dressing was often used with other dressings, so the effect of the foam dressing alone cannot be separated. Some regions did not maintain the planned sample size, and the analysis pooled regional pilot data, which can limit interpretation by setting or wound type. Wounds with missing data or loss to follow-up were excluded, and some patients had multiple wounds analyzed as separate units, which can overstate precision. The cost analysis excluded nursing-home wounds and used regional prices, so savings may not apply to every service. The study lasted 4 weeks and did not assess long-term healing, recurrence, infection, or formal cost-effectiveness.

Smith + Nephew funded the research and supported data analysis and manuscript authorship. The authors disclosed no other financial relationships.

Do not conclude that this dressing alone caused the fewer changes or lower costs. The foam dressing was often combined with other dressings, including gelling fibers, protease-modulating dressings, and antimicrobials, and the study had no randomised control group, so concurrent care and normal wound evolution may explain part of the improvement.