Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.
TLDR
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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify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Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of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.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Selection of Appropriate Wound Dressing for Various Wounds.
Chenyu Shi,Chenyu Wang,He Liu,Li Qiuju,Ronghang Li,Yan Zhang,Yuzhe Liu,Ying Shao,Jincheng Wang +8 more
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
Management of Chronic Wounds-2018.
Journal ArticleDOI
Quantitative Evaluation of Biologic Therapy Options for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Z.K. Jabbar‐Lopez,Zenas Z N Yiu,Victoria Ward,L S Exton,M. Firouz Mohd Mustapa,Eleanor J. Samarasekera,A. David Burden,Ruth Murphy,C. M. Owen,R Parslew,V.A. Venning,Richard B. Warren,Catherine H. Smith +12 more
TL;DR: Data suggest that it is possible to discriminate between biologics to inform clinical practice and decision making and that trial performance may not equate to real-world performance, and so results need to be considered alongside real- world, long-term safety and effectiveness data.
Journal ArticleDOI
Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers
TL;DR: This review is a network meta-analysis which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents in any care setting and ranks treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.
Journal ArticleDOI
Pressure ulcers: Prevention and management
TL;DR: This continuing medical education article will focus on pressure ulcer prevention and management, with a particular emphasis on the evidence for commonly accepted practices.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Alessandro Liberati,Douglas G. Altman,Jennifer Tetzlaff,Cynthia D. Mulrow,Peter C Gøtzsche,John P. A. Ioannidis,Mike Clarke,Mike Clarke,Philip J. Devereaux,Jos Kleijnen,David Moher +10 more
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the problem of comparing complex hierarchical models in which the number of parameters is not clearly defined and derive a measure pD for the effective number in a model as the difference between the posterior mean of the deviances and the deviance at the posterior means of the parameters of interest, which is related to other information criteria and has an approximate decision theoretic justification.
Journal ArticleDOI
WinBUGS – A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility
TL;DR: How and why various modern computing concepts, such as object-orientation and run-time linking, feature in the software's design are discussed and how the framework may be extended.
Journal ArticleDOI
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Howard Balshem,Mark Helfand,Mark Helfand,Holger J. Schünemann,Andrew D Oxman,Regina Kunz,Jan Brozek,Gunn Elisabeth Vist,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Joerg J Meerpohl,Susan L Norris,Gordon H. Guyatt +11 more
TL;DR: The approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies.