Alginate dressings for venous leg ulcers
19 Aug 2015-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 2015, Iss: 8, pp 0-0
TL;DR: The current evidence base does not suggest that alginate dressings are more or less effective in the healing of venous leg ulcers than hydrocolloid or plain non-adherent dressings, and there is no evidence to indicate a difference between different proprietary alginATE dressings.
Abstract: Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic or complex wound which can be distressing for patients and costly to healthcare providers. Compression therapy, in the form of bandages or stockings, is considered to be the cornerstone of venous leg ulcer management. Dressings are applied underneath bandages or stockings with the aim of protecting the wound and providing a moist environment to aid healing. Alginate dressings contain substances derived from seaweed and are one of several types of wound dressings available. We evaluated the evidence from five randomised controlled trials that compared either different brands of alginate dressings, or alginate dressings with other types of dressings. In terms of wound healing, we found no good evidence to suggest that there is any difference between different brands of alginate dressings, nor between alginate dressings and hydrocolloid or plain non-adherent dressings. Adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups (but not assessed for alginate versus plain non-adherent dressings). Overall, the current evidence is of low quality. Further, good quality evidence is required before any definitive conclusions can be made regarding the use of alginate dressings in the management of venous leg ulcers.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the management of chronic venous disease is addressed in the Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and the ESCV guidelines are presented.
656 citations
TL;DR: There are patients not receiving appropriate and timely treatment in the initial development of VLUs, effective management of their VLU and preventing recurrence once the VLU has healed, which complicates the guideline implementation process.
Abstract: Introduction It is well documented that the prevalence of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) is increasing, coinciding with an ageing population. Accurate global prevalence of VLUs is difficult to estimate due to the range of methodologies used in studies and accuracy of reporting. (1) Venous ulceration is the most common type of leg ulceration and a significant clinical problem, affecting approximately 1% of the population and 3% of people over 80 years of age (2) in westernised countries. Moreover, the global prevalence of VLUs is predicted to escalate dramatically, as people are living longer, often with multiple comorbidities. Recent figures on the prevalence of VLUs are based on a small number of studies, conducted in Western countries, and the evidence is weak. However, it is estimated that 93% of VLUs will heal in 12 months, and 7% remain unhealed after five years. (3) Furthermore, the recurrence rate within 3 months after wound closure is as high as 70%. (4) (-6) Thus, cost-effective adjunct evidence-based treatment strategies and services are needed to help prevent these ulcers, facilitate healing when they occur and prevent recurrence. The impact of a VLU represents social, personal, financial and psychological costs on the individual and further economic drain on the health-care system. This brings the challenge of providing a standardised leg ulcer service which delivers evidence-based treatment for the patient and their ulcer. It is recognised there are variations in practice and barriers preventing the implementation of best practice. There are patients not receiving appropriate and timely treatment in the initial development of VLUs, effective management of their VLU and preventing recurrence once the VLU has healed. Health-care professionals (HCPs) and organisations must have confidence in the development process of clinical practice guidelines and have ownership of these guidelines to ensure those of the highest quality guide their practice. These systematic judgments can assist in policy development, and decision making, improve communication, reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. There is an abundance of studies and guidelines that are available and regularly updated, however, there is still variation in the quality of the services offered to patients with a VLU. There are also variations in the evidence and some recommendations contradict each other, which can cause confusion and be a barrier to implementation. (7) The difference in health-care organisational structures, management support and the responsibility of VLU management can vary in different countries, often causing confusion and a barrier to seeking treatment. These factors further complicate the guideline implementation process, which is generally known to be a challenge with many diseases. (8).
214 citations
TL;DR: A clinical guideline for selecting suitable wound dressings according to the types of wounds is provided and the pros and cons of mainstream modern wound Dressings for the healing of different wounds are summarized.
Abstract: There are many factors involved in wound healing, and the healing process is not static. The therapeutic effect of modern wound dressings in the clinical management of wounds is documented. However, there are few reports regarding the reasonable selection of dressings for certain types of wounds in the clinic. In this article, we retrospect the history of wound dressing development and the classification of modern wound dressings. In addition, the pros and cons of mainstream modern wound dressings for the healing of different wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, burns and scalds, and chronic leg ulcers, as well as the physiological mechanisms involved in wound healing are summarized. This article provides a clinical guideline for selecting suitable wound dressings according to the types of wounds.
147 citations
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.
144 citations
TL;DR: It has been demonstrated that MSCs speed up wound healing by decreasing inflammation, by promoting angiogenesis, and by decreasing scarring, but there are some potential limitations to successful MSC therapy.
Abstract: Significance: Almost 7 million Americans have chronic cutaneous wounds and billions of dollars are spent on their treatment. The number of patients with nonhealing wounds keeps increasing worldwide due to an ever-aging population, increasing number of obese and diabetic patients, and cardiovascular disease. Recent Advances: Advanced treatments for difficult wounds are needed. Therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is attractive due to their differentiating potential, their immunomodulating properties, and their paracrine effects. Critical Issues: New technologies (including growth factors and skin substitutes) are now widely used for stimulating wound healing. However, in spite of these advances, the percentage of complete wound closure in most clinical situations is around 50–60%. Moreover, there is a high rate of wound recurrence. Future Directions: Recently, it has been demonstrated that MSCs speed up wound healing by decreasing inflammation, by promoting angiogenesis, and by decreasing scarring. H...
108 citations
References
More filters
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 …
45,105 citations
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.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: The Consort 2010 Statement as discussed by the authors has been used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and has been updated by Schulz et al. in 2010, based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
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.
11,165 citations
TL;DR: This Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and includes an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.
8,021 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.
4,381 citations