Dataset Information

Effect of Earthworm on Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT: Background: Earthworm, also called dilong (Chinese language), has been used as a traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years. Recently, some scientists believe that earthworm extracts (EE) can promote wound healing. However, its effectiveness remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of EE on wound healing based on the healing rate. Methods: We comprehensively reviewed literature that mentioned EE for wound healing in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and WanFang database that have been published until January 2021. We computed weighted mean difference (WMD) for analysis with RevMan 5.3 software in animal and human models groups. Two researchers independently selected studies and evaluated the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020168400). Results: From 2,486 articles, we selected 16 studies for analysis. EE treatment was associated with improvements in wound healing performance based on wound healing rate (mouse model: weighted mean difference (WMD) = 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.34–4.77, p < 0.00001; rat model: WMD = 17.29, 95% CI: 5.75–28.82, p = 0.003; rabbit model: WMD = 19.29, 95% CI: 9.95–28.64, p < 0.0001). Clinical studies also confirmed that EE could reduce healing time in hospital (WMD = −8.94, 95% CI: −17.75 to −0.14, p = 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of EE on wound healing process. As a corollary, EE can be a useful natural product for wound healing drug development. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168400, identifier CRD42020168400.

SUBMITTER: Wang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8568887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhotobiomodulation is widely being used to improve the wound healing process in dentistry and a vast majority of studies have proven its benefits. But there are plenty of knowledge gaps according to the optimal laser characteristics which should be used to maximize the healing effects of lasers. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) as an adjunctive treatment to periodontal therapies to evaluate secondary intention gingival wound healing and post-operative pain.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Sciences) were searched up to November 30, 2020, for clinical trials that reported the result of the application of PBM on secondary gingival healing wounds and post-operative pain and discomfort after periodontal surgeries. Two independent reviewers selected the eligible studies and the outcomes of interest were extracted. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsUltimately, twelve studies were included in this review. The application of PBM as an adjunct to periodontal surgeries resulted in a significant improvement in wound healing indices. The Landry wound healing index at the 7th post-operative day was significantly improved (SMD = 1.044 [95% CI 0.62-1.46]; p < 0.01) in PBM + surgery groups compared to the control groups. There was also a statistically significant increase in the complete wound epithelialization (RR = 3.23 [95% CI 1.66-6.31]; p < 0.01) at the 14th post-operative day compared to the control groups. The methods used to assess the post-operative pain were heterogeneous, and therefore the results were limited which made the meta-analysis for post-operative pain assessment not possible.ConclusionBased on the results of this review, PBM can be effectively used as a method to improve secondary intention wound healing. High-quality randomized clinical trials, however, are needed in the future to identify the optimal PBM irradiation parameters and the effect of PBM on post-operative pain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic wounds have been a great burden to patients and the health care system. The popularity of the internet and smart devices, such as mobile phones and tablets, has made it possible to adopt telemedicine (TM) to improve the management of chronic wounds. However, studies conducted by different researchers have reported contradictory results on the effect of TM on chronic wound management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TM in chronic wound management. METHODS:We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) to identify eligible studies published from inception to June 12, 2019. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and interventional cohort studies that investigated the use of TM in chronic wound management. RCT and observational data were analyzed separately. A meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted to estimate endpoints. RESULTS:A total of 6 RCTs and 6 cohort studies including 3913 patients were included. Of these, 4 studies used tablets or mobile phones programmed with apps, such as Skype and specialized interactive systems, whereas the remaining 8 studies used email, telephone, and videoconferencing to facilitate the implementation of TM using a specialized system. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed no significant differences in wound healing (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.39; P=.13), and wound healing around 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.89-1.23; P=.15). Noninferiority criteria of TM were met. A decreased risk of amputation in patients receiving TM was revealed (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71; P=.001). The result of cohort studies showed that TM was more effective than standard care (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.43-2.12; P<.001), whereas the outcome efficacy RR of wound healing around 1 year (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.53; P=.56) and 3 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.47-3.3; P=.67) was not significantly different between TM and standard care. Noninferiority criteria of TM were met for wound healing around 1 year in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS:Currently available evidence suggests that TM seems to have similar efficacy and safety, and met noninferiority criteria with conventional standard care of chronic wounds. Large-scale, well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. METHODS:We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). RESULTS:We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD - 4.78, 95% CI - 7.79 to - 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Dataset Information

Effect of Earthworm on Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets