scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers

21 May 2015-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 2015, Iss: 5

TL;DR: The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear and decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.
Abstract: Background: 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 there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. Objectives: To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. Search methods: For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. Authors' conclusions: The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.
Topics: Cochrane Library (53%)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Author
Dumville, Jo C, Keogh, Samantha J, Liu, Zhenmi, Stubbs, Nikki, Walker, Rachel M, Fortnam,
Mathew
Published
2015
Journal Title
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version
Version of Record (VoR)
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011277.pub2
Copyright Statement
© 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This review is
published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015,
Issue 5. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response
to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be
consulted for the most recent version of the Review.
Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/81471
Griffith Research Online
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Dumville JC, Keogh SJ, Liu Z, Stubbs N, Walker RM, Fortnam M
Dumville JC, Keogh SJ, Liu Z, Stubbs N, Walker RM, Fortnam M.
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD011277.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011277.pub2.
www.cochranelibrary.com
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
20ADDITIONAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29AUTHORS’ CON CLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46ADDITIONAL TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56INDEX TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iAlginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Colla boration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Intervention Review]
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers
Jo C Dumville
1
, Samantha J Keogh
2
, Zhenmi Liu
1
, Nikki Stubbs
3
, Rachel M Walker
2
, Mathew Fortnam
4
1
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
2
NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence
in Nursing, Centre for Health Practice Innovation, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
3
Wound Prevention and Management Service, Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary’s Hospital, Leeds, UK.
4
Cochrane
Wounds Group, University of York, York, UK
Contact address: Jo C Dumville, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL,
UK.
jo.dumville@manchester. ac.uk.
Editorial group: Cochrane Wounds Group.
Publication s tatus and date: New, published in Issue 5, 2015.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 14 April 2015.
Citation: Dumville JC, Keogh SJ, Liu Z, Stubbs N, Walker RM, Fortnam M. Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulce r s. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD011277. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011277.pub2.
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A B S T R A C T
Background
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 there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings.
A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of
pressure ul cers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.
Objectives
To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulce r s in any care setting.
Search methods
For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane
Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other
Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
Selection criteria
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or
no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
Main results
We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings
with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of
the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was
of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a diff erence between alginate dressings and alternative
treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events.
1Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Colla boration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors conclusions
The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration
and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties
offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.
P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y
Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers
What are pressure ulcers, and who is at risk?
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are wounds involving the skin and sometimes the
tissue th at lies underneath. Pressure ulcers can be painful, may become infected, and so affect people’s quality of life. People at risk of
developing pressure ulcers include those with spinal cord injuries, and those who are immobile or who have limited mobility - such as
elderly people and people who are ill as a result of short-term or long-term medical conditions.
In 2004 the total annual cost of treating pressure ulcers in the UK was estimated as being GBP 1.4 to 2.1 billion, which was equivalent
to 4% of the total National Health Service expenditure. Pe ople with pressure ulcers have longer stays in hospital, and this increases
hospital costs. Figures from th e USA for 2006 suggest that hal f a million hospital stays had ’pressure ulcer’ noted as a diagnosis; the
total hospital costs of these stays was USD 11 billion.
Why use alginate dressings to treat pressure ulcers?
Dressings are one treatment option for pressure ulcers. There are many types of dressings that can be used; these can vary considerably
in cost. Alginate dressings are a type that is highly absorbant and so can absorb the fluid (exudate) that is produced by some ulcers.
What we found
In June 2014 we searched for as many relevant studies as we could find that had a robust design (randomised controlled trials) and
compared alginate dressings with other treatments for pressure ulcers. We found 6 studies involving a total of 336 participants. Alginates
have been compared with hydrocolloid dressings, another type of alginate dressing, dextranomer paste dressing, silver-alginate dressing,
silver-zinc sulfadiazine cream and treatment with a radiant heat system in these studies. There was no evidence from these studies to
suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective at healing pressure ulcers than other types of dressings or skin surface (topical)
treatments, or other interventions.
Generally, the studies we found did not have many participants and the results were often inconclusive. Some study reports did not
provide information about how they were conducted and it was difficult to tel l whether the results presented were likely to be true.
More research of better quality is needed to find out if alginate dressings are better at healing pressure ulcers than other types of dressings
or other treatments. This review is part of a suite of reviews investigating dressings for the treatment of pressure ulcers
This plain language summary is up-to-date as of June 2014.
2Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Colla boration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
Laura E. Dickinson, Sharon Gerecht1Institutions (1)
TL;DR: Key polymeric scaffold design criteria, including degradation, biocompatibility, and microstructure, and how they translate to inductive microenvironments that stimulate cell infiltration and vascularization to enhance chronic wound healing are discussed.
Abstract: Skin regeneration requires the coordinated integration of concomitant biological and molecular events in the extracellular wound environment during overlapping phases of inflammation, proliferation, and matrix remodeling. This process is highly efficient during normal wound healing. However, chronic wounds fail to progress through the ordered and reparative wound healing process and are unable to heal, requiring long-term treatment at high costs. There are many advanced skin substitutes, which mostly comprise bioactive dressings containing mammalian derived matrix components and/or human cells, in clinical use. However, it is presently hypothesized that no treatment significantly outperforms the others. To address this unmet challenge, recent research has focused on developing innovative acellular biopolymeric scaffolds as more efficacious wound healing therapies. These biomaterial-based skin substitutes are precisely engineered and fine-tuned to recapitulate aspects of the wound healing milieu and target specific events in the wound healing cascade to facilitate complete skin repair with restored function and tissue integrity. This mini-review will provide a brief overview of chronic wound healing and current skin substitute treatment strategies while focusing on recent engineering approaches that regenerate skin using synthetic, biopolymeric scaffolds. We discuss key polymeric scaffold design criteria, including degradation, biocompatibility, and microstructure, and how they translate to inductive microenvironments that stimulate cell infiltration and vascularization to enhance chronic wound healing. As healthcare moves towards precision medicine-based strategies, the potential and therapeutic implications of synthetic, biopolymeric scaffolds as tunable treatment modalities for chronic wounds will be considered.

113 citations


Cites background from "Alginate dressings for treating pre..."

  • ...…numerous alginate-based wound dressings approved for use in managing variety of wound types in which exudate is present, such as chronic wounds, including TegagenTM (3M), AlgisiteTM (Smith and Nephew), and Algi-Fiber (CoreLeader Biotech) to name a few (Dumville et al., 2015; O’Meara et al., 2015)....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite an increased number of therapies available on the market, none has demonstrated any clear benefit over the others and pressure ulcer treatment remains frustrating and time-consuming.
Abstract: Significance: The incidence of pressure ulcers is increasing due to our aging population and the increase in the elderly living with disability. Learning how to manage pressure ulcers appropriately is increasingly important for all professionals in wound care. Recent Advances: Many new dressings and treatment modalities have been developed over the recent years and the goal of this review is to highlight their benefits and drawbacks to help providers choose their tools appropriately. Critical Issues: Despite an increased number of therapies available on the market, none has demonstrated any clear benefit over the others and pressure ulcer treatment remains frustrating and time-consuming. Future Directions: Additional research is needed to develop products more effective in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers.

86 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Maggie J Westby1, Jo C Dumville1, Marta Soares2, Nikki Stubbs3  +1 moreInstitutions (3)
TL;DR: This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents and reports ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment).
Abstract: Background 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 is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents. Objectives To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality. Search methods In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole. Main results We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds. We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole. It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision. Authors' conclusions A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze. More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

43 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There is lack of high quality evidence and the need for future well designed trials on physical properties of wound dressing products, including semipermeable films, foams, hydroactives, alginates, hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and hydrogels.
Abstract: Wound management is a significant and growing issue worldwide. Knowledge of dressing products and clinical expertise in dressing selection are two major components in holistic wound management to ensure evidence-based wound care. With expanding global market of dressing products, there is need to update clinician knowledge of dressing properties in wound care. Optimal wound management depends on accurate patient assessment, wound diagnosis, clinicians' knowledge of the wound healing process and properties of wound dressings. We conducted a comprehensive review of the physical properties of wound dressing products, including the advantages and disadvantages, indications and contraindications and effectiveness of first-line interactive/bioactive dressing groups commonly used in clinical practice. These include semipermeable films, foams, hydroactives, alginates, hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and hydrogels. In making decisions regarding dressing product selection, clinicians need to ensure a holistic assessment of patient and wound etiology, and understand dressing properties when making clinical decisions using wound management guidelines to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This review has highlighted there is lack of high quality evidence and the need for future well designed trials.

42 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Aline Lueckgen1, Daniela S. Garske1, Agnes Ellinghaus1, Rajiv Desai2  +5 moreInstitutions (3)
01 Oct 2018-Biomaterials
TL;DR: Degradable biomaterials with tunable and decoupled mechanical and degradation behavior could be useful in many tissue engineering applications.
Abstract: Degradable biomaterials aim to recapitulate the dynamic microenvironment that cells are naturally exposed to By oxidizing the alginate polymer backbone, thereby rendering it susceptible to hydrolysis, and crosslinking it via norbornene-tetrazine click chemistry, we can control rheological, mechanical, and degradation properties of resulting hydrogels Chemical modifications were confirmed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and the resulting mechanical properties measured by rheology and unconfined compression testing, demonstrating that these are both a function of norbornene coupling and oxidation state The degradation behavior was verified by tracking mechanical and swelling behavior over time, showing that degradation could be decoupled from initial mechanical properties The cell compatibility was assessed in 2D and 3D using a mouse pre-osteoblast cell line and testing morphology, proliferation, and viability Cells attached, spread and proliferated in 2D and retained a round morphology and stable number in 3D, while maintaining high viability in both contexts over 7 days Finally, oxidized and unoxidized control materials were implanted subcutaneously into the backs of C57/Bl6 mice, and recovered after 8 weeks Histological staining revealed morphological differences and fibrous tissue infiltration only in oxidized materials These materials with tunable and decoupled mechanical and degradation behavior could be useful in many tissue engineering applications

41 citations


References
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

37,135 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
18 Aug 2009-PLOS Medicine
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

22,678 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
24 Mar 2010-BMJ
Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.

10,189 citations


22 Sep 2008-
TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (ISBN 978-0470057964) is published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England.
Abstract: An earlier version (version 5.0.2, 2008) of the Handbook is also published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd under “The Cochrane Book Series” Imprint, as Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (ISBN 978-0470057964) by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, Telephone (+44) 1243 779777; Email (for orders and customer service enquiries): cs-books@wiley.co.uk. Visit their Home Page on www.wiley.com.

4,256 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
24 Mar 2010-PLOS Medicine
TL;DR: The 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement is described, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.
Abstract: Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.

4,133 citations


Network Information
Related Papers (5)
Performance
Metrics
No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years
YearCitations
20211
20205
20195
20184
20173
20166