title: Methodological recommendations for comparative research on the treatment of chronic wounds.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To provide specific recommendations to product developers and clinical researchers on the design of comparative effectiveness studies for the treatment of chronic wounds, specifically those pertaining to arterial and venous-disease related ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers and burn wounds.
  
  
  METHODS
  The recommendations were developed based on a process defined by the Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP). After selecting the subject area, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted by one of the authors (SSS) with representatives of payers, manufacturers, clinicians, clinician/researchers and patient advocates. Next, a broad range of stakeholders participated in a meeting convened by CMTP to determine their needs. A technical working group comprising key stakeholders then participated in clarifying recommendations developed by CMTP staff and adding important considerations for their implementation. The resulting draft document was finalised based on public and solicited comment from individual manufacturers; a consortium of product developers and manufacturers; and an alliance of physicians, providers, manufacturers and patient organisations. This article is a summary of the full effectiveness guidance document.
  
  
  RESULTS
  To address the needs of patients, clinicians, guideline developers, payers and other post-regulatory decision makers, this work makes ten recommendations to guide comparative effectiveness research for chronic wound care. These recommendations fall into four categories: study design, population, comparators and outcomes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This paper suggests that using the recommendations outlined to conduct comparative effectiveness research on treatments for chronic wound therapies would facilitate trials that provide patients, clinicians, and payers with the information they need to make optimal treatment decisions. These recommendations focus on design changes that would have the largest impact in improving the usability of the results by decision makers and provide specific guidance on the design of prospective studies intended to inform decision making by patients, clinicians and payers.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  There were no external sources of funding for these recommendations. The Value Institute and the Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP) are both private, non-profit organisations. The authors have no financial, commercial or social conflicts of interest to declare with respect to the article or its content.
authors.affiliation: The Value Institute, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware, USA.
authors.forename: S S
authors.initials: SS
authors.lastname: Sonnad
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Goldsack
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Mohr
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Tunis
mesh_terms: D002056:Burns / Q000628:therapy*; D002908:Chronic Disease; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research / Q000592:standards*; D003657:Decision Making; D017719:Diabetic Foot / Q000628:therapy*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D020380:Needs Assessment; D003668:Pressure Ulcer / Q000628:therapy*; D012107:Research Design; D014647:Varicose Ulcer / Q000628:therapy*; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000502:physiology*