Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Westby MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481609 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.
Westby Maggie J MJ Dumville Jo C JC Soares Marta O MO Stubbs Nikki N Norman Gill G
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20170622
<h4>Background</h4>Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6517041 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481886 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6984413 | 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-EPMC9354941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Wound management recommendations usually group dressings by base substrate material or reimbursement codes, even when functional differences are vast (e.g., honey-containing alginates, super-absorbent hydrogels). Polymeric membrane dressings (PMDs) diverge dramatically from conventional foam dressings in functional attributes, indications, and patient results, providing an opportunity to demonstrate the evidence for categorizing dressings based upon functional differences. Approach: A search of ALL published literature describing the use of PMDs, with no date or language limits, was conducted. Documents simply listing a PMD brand name (e.g., PolyMem) as one of many "foam" dressings were eliminated. The subset of evidence evaluating PMDs for tissue damage resulting from pressure (pressure ulcers, pressure injuries, henceforth: PUs) was summarized. Results: Studies of PMDs, primarily from independent clinician-researchers, have accumulated into a significant evidence base over the past 30 years. PMDs actively cleanse and debride wounds, balance moisture, relieve pain, and limit inflammation: all functions not shared by conventional foams. Innovation: This article supports a paradigm shift for wound management guidance materials to embrace a more evidence-based, patient-centered method of classifying products. The results presented here, using PMDs for PUs as an example, show that functional attributes, indications, and patient results are not always dictated by dressing substrates. Rather than being comparable with conventional foam dressings, PMDs have substantially enhanced functions and results. Conclusion: These results strongly support the author's assertion that evidence-based wound management requires guidelines and recommendations that categorize advanced dressings based upon how they function in real-life settings, rather than upon their base substrate.
| S-EPMC6306668 | biostudies-other
Project description:Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings are self-adherent, multilayer foam dressings designed for use on the heel and sacrum aiming to prevent pressure ulcers. The dressings are used in addition to standard care protocols for pressure ulcer prevention. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings for evaluation. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission. Thirteen studies (four randomised controlled trials and nine nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. The majority of studies compared Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings (plus standard care) with standard care alone. Comparative evidence for Mepilex Border Heel dressings was limited. A meta-analysis indicated a non-statistically significant difference in favour of Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings for pressure ulcer incidence [RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-1.18)]. The company produced a de novo cost model, which was critiqued by the EAC. After the EAC updated input parameters, cost savings of £19 per patient compared with standard care alone for pressure ulcer prevention were estimated with Mepilex Border dressings predicted to be cost saving in 57% of iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence and judged that, although Mepilex Border Heel and Sacrum dressings have potential to prevent pressure ulcers in people who are considered to be at risk in acute care settings, further evidence is required to address uncertainties around the claimed benefits of the dressings and the incidence of pressure ulcers in an NHS acute-care setting. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 40.
| S-EPMC6647510 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9121912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is uncertain whether hydrocolloid dressings, a more costly intervention than offering standard care with petrolatum, is superior to prevent pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk adults. Randomized, parallel-group, open-label, superiority trial with an active control group, blinded for investigators, event validators, and analysts (December 1, 2015 to December 12, 2017). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with intact skin judged as high-risk for skin ulcers (Braden scale), admitted to surgical or medical wards of two tertiary-level hospitals. Participants were randomized (1:1) to protection with hydrocolloid dressings or petrolatum. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of pressure ulcers (with post-injury photographs adjudicated by three judges) under intention-to-treat analysis. Based on prior cost analysis, and the available resources (assumed incidence of 6 ulcers/1000 patient-days in controls), inclusion of up to 1500 participants allowed to surpass a one-sided superiority threshold > 5% based on a target efficacy > 40% for dressings. We planned an economic analysis using a decision tree model based on the effectiveness of the study results from a perspective of the third payer of health care. After inclusion of 689 patients (69 events), the trial was stopped for futility after a planned interim analysis (conditional power < 0.1 for all scenarios if the trial was completed). Pressure ulcers had occurred in 34 (10.2%) patients in the intervention group [9.6 per 1000 patient-days] and 35 (9.9%) participants in the control group [7.9 per 1000 patient-days], HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.67 to 1.71]. The estimated incremental cost for dressings (a dominated strategy) was USD 52.11 per patient. Using hydrocolloid dressings was found similar to petrolatum for preventing pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk patients. As it conveys additional costs, and in this study was unlikely to demonstrate enough superiority, this strategy did not overcome conventional skin care.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02565745 registered on December 1, 2015.
| S-EPMC10703794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the evidence of effectiveness of dressings applied to venous leg ulcers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesHand searches of journals and searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies up to April 2006; contacts with dressing manufacturers for unpublished studies.Studies reviewedAll randomised controlled trials that evaluated dressings applied to venous leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy identified 254 studies; 42 of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloids were no more effective than simple low adherent dressings used beneath compression (eight trials; relative risk for healing with hydrocolloid 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). For other comparisons, insufficient evidence was available to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. None of the dressing comparisons showed evidence that a particular class of dressing healed more ulcers. Some differences existed between dressings in terms of subjective outcome measures and ulcer healing rates. The results were not affected by the size or quality of trials or the unit of randomisation. Insufficient data were available to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative cost effectiveness of different dressings.ConclusionsThe type of dressing applied beneath compression was not shown to affect ulcer healing. The results of the meta-analysis showed that applying hydrocolloid dressings beneath compression produced no benefit in terms of ulcer healing compared with applying simple low adherent dressings. No conclusive recommendations can be made as to which type of dressing is most cost effective. Decisions on which dressing to apply should be based on the local costs of dressings and the preferences of the practitioner or patient.
| S-EPMC1939774 | biostudies-literature