↓ Skip to main content

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
147 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011947.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maggie J Westby, Jo C Dumville, Marta O Soares, Nikki Stubbs, Gill Norman

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 147 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Unknown 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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 25 August 2019.
All research outputs
#160,066
of 13,609,947 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#358
of 10,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,009
of 264,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,609,947 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 264,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.