Interventions for preventing and treating incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Beeckman D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464993 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interventions for preventing and treating incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.
Beeckman Dimitri D Van Damme Nele N Schoonhoven Lisette L Van Lancker Aurélie A Kottner Jan J Beele Hilde H Gray Mikel M Woodward Sue S Fader Mandy M Van den Bussche Karen K Van Hecke Ann A De Meyer Dorien D Verhaeghe Sofie S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20161110
<h4>Background</h4>Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and procedures are the same for both prevention and treatment of IAD.<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various products and procedures to preventand treat incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.<h4>Search methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Speci ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6355973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPressure ulcers affect approximately 10% of people in hospitals and older people are at highest risk. A correlation between inadequate nutritional intake and the development of pressure ulcers has been suggested by several studies, but the results have been inconsistent.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.Search methodsIn March 2014, for this first update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL. No date, language or publication status limits were applied.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, which measured the incidence of new ulcers, ulcer healing or changes in pressure ulcer severity. There were no restrictions on types of patient, setting, date, publication status or language.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.Main resultsWe included 23 RCTs, many were small (between 9 and 4023 participants, median 88) and at high risk of bias.Eleven trials compared a combination of nutritional supplements, consisting of a minimum of energy and protein in different dosages, for the prevention of pressure ulcers. A meta-analysis of eight trials (6062 participants) that compared the effects of mixed nutritional supplements with standard hospital diet found no clear evidence of an effect of supplementation on pressure ulcer development (pooled RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; P value 0.05; I(2) = 13%, random effects). This outcome is at unclear or high risk of bias.Fourteen trials evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the healing of existing pressure ulcers: seven trials examined mixed nutritional supplements, three the effects of proteins, two trials examined zinc, and two studies examined ascorbic acid. The included trials were heterogeneous with regard to participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes and meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was no clear evidence of an improvement in pressure ulcer healing from the nutritional supplements evaluated in any of these individual studies.Authors' conclusionsThere is currently no clear evidence of a benefit associated with nutritional interventions for either the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Further trials of high methodological quality are necessary.
| S-EPMC9736772 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6886341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDue to their ageing skin, older adults are more likely to develop incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). Although previous attempts to look at the risk factors for IAD in older adults were done, methodological barriers hindered an in-depth understanding. By investigating risk factors for IAD in the ageing population, the development of precise clinical interventions and guidance could be facilitated, which in turn would enhance patient care standards for incontinence management in this target group. To address this knowledge gap, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to explore the major risk elements linked to IAD among older adults.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols are adhered to in this systematic review and meta-analysis. To achieve its objectives, a comprehensive search strategy PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), WanFang Data Knowledge Service Platform, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, along with other relevant sources published until 18 July 2023 in both English and Chinese languages will be performed. The screening of articles, data abstraction and risk of bias evaluation will be done by two impartial reviewers. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for data synthesis. The quality of the included study will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment tool and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The I 2 test will identify the heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationThere is no need for ethical approval. Individual patient information or the rights of participants will not be compromised by this protocol. The findings will either be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023442585.
| S-EPMC10748873 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7053516 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7203602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Problem-solving (PS) has been identified as a therapeutic technique found in multiple evidence-based treatments for depression. To further understand for whom and how this intervention works, we undertook a systematic review of the evidence for PS's effectiveness in preventing and treating depression among adolescents and young adults. We searched electronic databases (PsycINFO, Medline, and Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Studies meeting the following criteria were included: (a) the intervention was described by authors as a PS intervention or including PS; (b) the intervention was used to treat or prevent depression; (c) mean or median age between 13-25 years; (d) at least one depression outcome was reported. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken given the high level of heterogeneity in study variables. Twenty-five out of 874 studies met inclusion criteria. The interventions studied were heterogeneous in population, intervention, modality, comparison condition, study design, and outcome. Twelve studies focused purely on PS; 13 used PS as part of a more comprehensive intervention. Eleven studies found positive effects in reducing depressive symptoms and two in reducing suicidality. There was little evidence that the intervention impacted PS skills or that PS skills acted as a mediator or moderator of effects on depression. There is mixed evidence about the effectiveness of PS as a prevention and treatment of depression among AYA. Our findings indicate that pure PS interventions to treat clinical depression have the strongest evidence, while pure PS interventions used to prevent or treat sub-clinical depression and PS as part of a more comprehensive intervention show mixed results. Possible explanations for limited effectiveness are discussed, including missing outcome bias, variability in quality, dosage, and fidelity monitoring; small sample sizes and short follow-up periods.
| S-EPMC10464969 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9211385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are the single most common cause of intracerebral haemorrhage in young adults. Brain AVMs also cause seizure(s) and focal neurological deficits (in the absence of haemorrhage, migraine or an epileptic seizure); approximately one-fifth are incidental discoveries. Various interventions are used in an attempt to eradicate brain AVMs: neurosurgical excision, stereotactic radiosurgery, endovascular embolization, and staged combinations of these interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and last updated in 2009.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of the different interventions, alone or in combination, for treating brain AVMs in adults compared against either each other, or conservative management, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Search methodsThe Cochrane Stroke Group Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1980 to 14 January 2019), and Embase OVID (1980 to 14 January 2019). We searched international registers of clinical trials, the contents pages of relevant journals, and bibliographies of relevant articles (November 2009). We also contacted manufacturers of interventional treatments for brain AVMs (March 2005).Selection criteriaWe sought RCTs of any intervention for brain AVMs (used alone or in combination), compared against each other or against conservative management, with relevant clinical outcome measures.Data collection and analysisOne author screened the results of the updated searches for potentially eligible RCTs for this updated review. Both authors independently read the potentially eligible RCTs in full and confirmed their inclusion according to the inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreement by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and applied GRADE.Main resultsWe included one trial with 226 participants: A Randomized trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (ARUBA), comparing intervention versus conservative management for unruptured brain AVMs (that had never bled). The quality of evidence was moderate because we found just one trial that was at low risk of bias other than a high risk of performance bias due to participants and treating physicians not being blinded to allocated treatment. Data on functional outcome and death at a follow-up of 12 months were provided for 218 (96%) of the participants in ARUBA. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), intervention compared to conservative management increased death or dependency (modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 2, risk ratio (RR) 2.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 4.98; 1 trial, 226 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the proportion of participants with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (RR 6.75, 95% CI 2.07 to 21.96; 1 trial, 226 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in the frequency of epileptic seizures (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.06; 1 trial, 226 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Three RCTs are ongoing.Authors' conclusionsWe found moderate-quality evidence from one RCT including adults with unruptured brain AVMs that conservative management was superior to intervention with respect to functional outcome and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage over one year after randomization. More RCTs will help to confirm or refute these findings.
| S-EPMC6735449 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6464969 | biostudies-literature