Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Moore ZE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6517041 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481609 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8179968 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8108044 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8127698 | 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-EPMC6494581 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481886 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9354941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose was to identify and summarize the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the topical application of olive oil for preventing pressure ulcers (PUs). We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients at risk of developing PUs, testing the topical application of olive oil versus other products for PU prevention. We assessed the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. Four RCTs met the eligibility criteria. All studies were judged at a low risk of bias overall. The meta-analysis showed that the clinical efficacy of olive oil for prevention occurs by reducing the incidence of PUs (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.79, I2 = 0%); with no differences in adverse effects, it may be associated with a shorter development time of PUs and shorter hospital stays. The certainty of the evidence assessed by the GRADE approach was moderate and low. The topical application of olive oil is effective and safe in reducing the incidence of PUs compared to other treatments. These findings could provide new insights into olive oil as a preventive and alternative treatment for PUs as it is accessible and inexpensive compared to other products.
| S-EPMC9690722 | 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