| Title |
Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001898.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Debra Evans, Lucy Land, Jo C Dumville |
| Abstract |
Chronic wounds mainly affect the elderly and those with multiple health problems. Despite the use of modern dressings, some of these wounds take a long time to heal, fail to heal, or recur, causing significant pain and discomfort to the person and cost to health services. Topical negative pressure (TNP) is used to promote healing of surgical wounds by using suction to drain excess fluid from wounds. To assess the effects of TNP on chronic wound healing. For this second update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007, Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to November Week 2 2007, Ovid EMBASE - 1982 to 2007 Week 50 and Ovid CINAHL - 1980 to December Week 1 2007. In addition, we contacted authors, companies, manufacturers, and distributors to identify relevant trials and information. All randomised controlled trials which evaluated the effects of TNP on people with chronic wounds. Selection of the trials, quality assessment, data abstraction, and data synthesis were done by two authors independently. Disagreements were solved by discussion. Two trials were included in the original review. A further five trials were included in this second update resulting in a total of seven trials involving 205 participants.The seven trials compared TNP with five different comparator treatments. Four trials compared TNP with gauze soaked in either 0.9% saline or Ringer's solution. The other three trials compared TNP with hydrocolloid gel plus gauze, a treatment package comprising papain-urea topical treatment, and cadexomer iodine or hydrocolloid, hydrogels, alginate and foam. These data do not show that TNP significantly increases the healing rate of chronic wounds compared with comparators.Data on secondary outcomes such as infection rate, quality of life, oedema, hospitalisation and bacterial load were not reported. Trials comparing TNP with alternative treatments for chronic wounds have methodological flaws and data do demonstrate a beneficial effect of TNP on wound healing however more, better quality research is needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 16 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 12% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,415
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,286
of 280,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.