Cost-effectiveness analysis.
The ICER for this outcome was R$752.71 negative every ten days of wound resolution. It is assumed that if the entire sample had been treated with PBM, it would be possible to save R$7,527.10 and reduce the resolution time by ten days compared to the Control group (When analyzing the two outcomes, it was observed that there was a statistical difference in the evaluation of daily averages in the BATES-Jensen scale, and there was no statistical difference in the time of treatment. However, there was a difference in the costs of each group about the outcomes. Given this situation, the dominance of the treatments was analyzed through the cost-effectiveness matrix. The evaluation of the groups in the cost-effectiveness matrix compares costs and outcomes and the dominance of one over the other. When the procedure has lower cost and higher effectiveness than the other, it is in the dominant quadrant for it (G), that is, its use is the most indicated. The same indication happens when the procedure has the same effectiveness with a lower cost, or it has the same cost with higher effectiveness (D or E). However, when the two treatments have the same effectiveness and cost, the decision is arbitrary, and when a procedure has lower effectiveness and higher cost or vice versa (A or I), it is necessary to perform the ICER (Incremental Effectiveness Cost Ratio). In this case, the person who decides to choose the treatment needs to assess whether the additional value of the therapeutic alternative compensates for the clinical gain caused by the treatment. In the matrix, cells B, C, and F do not represent a new cost-effective alternative, while cells D, G, and H represent a new alternative to be considered. In this economic analysis, in the average daily score on the BJ scale, the PBM treatment was dominant because it presented greater effectiveness and lower cost. In contrast, resolution time, neither of the two treatments was dominant about the other, and the PBM, because it presented the same effectiveness and lower cost in relation to control group, is located in cell D, that is, an alternative to be considered for insertion in health services. Given this situation, the manager must clinically evaluate the clinical relevance and its costs for decision-making (Tables 