1. Moore Z, Coggins T. Clinician attitudes to shared-care and perceptions on the current extent of patient engagement in wound care: Results of a clinician survey. Wounds International. 2021;12(1):48-53.
2. Joy H, Bielby A, Searle R. A collaborative project to enhance efficiency through dressing change practice. J Wound Care. 2015;24(7):312-317. doi:10.12968/jowc.2015.24.7.312
3. Tiscar-González V, Menor-Rodríguez M, Rabadán-Sainz C, et al. Clinical and Economic Impact of Wound Care Using a Polyurethane Foam Multilayer Dressing. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2021;34(1):23-30. doi:10.1097/01.asw.0000722744.20511.71
4. Moore Z, Kapp S, Loney A, et al. A tool to promote patient and informal carer involvement for shared wound care. Wounds International. 2021;12(3):86-92.
5. Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H. Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy and acceptance of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system versus traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of lower limb chronic ulcers (VLU and DFU). In: Poster Presented at the 10th Annual Abu Dhabi Wound Care Conference. 10th Annual Abu Dhabi Wound Care Conference; 2019.
6. Forni C, D’Alessandro F, Gallerani P, et al. Effectiveness of using a new polyurethane foam multi-layer dressing in the sacral area to prevent the onset of pressure ulcer in the elderly with hip fractures: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2018;15(3):383-390. doi:10.1111/IWJ.12875
7. Rossington A, Drysdale K, Winter R. Clinical performance and positive impact on patient wellbeing of ALLEVYN Life. Wounds UK. 2013;9(4):91-95.
8. Stephen-Haynes J, Bielby A, Searle R. The clinical performance of a silicone foam in an NHS community trust. Journal of Community Nursing. 2013;27(5):50-59.
9. Simon D, Bielby A. A structured collaborative approach to appraise the clinical performance of a new product. Wounds UK. 2014;10(3`):80-87. https://www.wounds-uk.com/journals/issue/39/article-details/a-structured-collaborative-approach-to-appraise-the-clinical-performance-of-a-new-product
10. Smith+Nephew. Product Performance of Next Generation ALLEVYN Life Internal Report.; 2016.
11. Forni C, Searle R. A multilayer polyurethane foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention in older hip fracture patients: an economic evaluation. J Wound Care. 2020;29(2):120-127. doi:10.12968/JOWC.2020.29.2.120
12. Smith+Nephew. Internal Report. CSD. AWM.22.045 .; 2022.
13. Moore Z, Loney A, Probst S, et al. 3.5 billion hours of nurse time released by 2030: Potential efficiency gains from shared care and long-wear advanced foam dressings. Wounds International. 2022;13(2):10-16.
14. Dowsett C, Hampton J, Myers D, Styche T. Use of PICOTM to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds International. 2017;8(2):52-58. www.woundsinternational.com
15. Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(5):519-529. doi:10.1111/WRR.12727
16. Hurd T. Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Innovations in Chronic Wound Care Products and Practices. Published online 2013.
17. Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A, et al. Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no-canister system. Int Wound J. 2015;12(2):195-201. doi:10.1111/IWJ.12080
18. Hurd T, Trueman P, Rossington A. Use of a portable, single-use negative pressure wound therapy device in home care patients with low to moderately exuding wounds: a case series. Ostomy Wound Management. 2014;60(3):30-36.
19. Gilchrist B, Robinson M, Jaimes H. Performance, safety, and efficacy of a single use negative pressure wound therapy system for surgically closed incision sites and skin grafts: A prospective multi-centre follow-up study. Published online 2020.
20. Smith & Nephew March 2018.Kendal PICO 7Y - pump weight and dimensions. Internal Report. DS.18.066.R.
21. Smith & Nephew 2018.PICO 14 Pump weight and dimensions. Internal Report. RD/18/137.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

ⁱ Manufacturer's IFU should always be consulted.
ⁱⁱ “Bigger smiles” refers to patient “overall satisfaction” score, where 87.6% of PICO sNPWT patients agreed or strongly agreed they were satisfied vs. 68.9% of tNPWT patients
ⁱⁱⁱ With a training regime
^iv Compared to baseline with standard dressings¹⁴ and vs tNPWT^15
v n=17 This is for wounds less than three months in duration. This is wounds classified as on a healing trajectory, not necessarily 'success'