-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality.Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence).Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported.There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanide swab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD -2.03, 95% CI -2.66 to -1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Humans; Iodophors; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resins, Plant; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27040598
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011586.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, accounting for 5% to 20% of legal blindness, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population.Corticosteroids are the mainstay of acute treatment for all anatomical subtypes of non-infectious uveitis and can be administered orally, topically with drops or ointments, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 15 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 November 2015.We also searched reference lists of included study reports, citation databases, and abstracts and clinical study presentations from professional meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from two studies (619 eyes of 401 participants) that compared FA implants with standard-of-care therapy. Both studies used similar standard-of-care therapy that included administration of prednisolone and, if needed, immunosuppressive agents. The studies included participants from Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We assessed both studies at high risk of performance and detection bias.Only one study reported our primary outcome, recurrence of uveitis at any point during the study through 24 months. The evidence, judged as moderate-quality, showed that a FA implant probably prevents recurrence of uveitis compared with standard-of-care therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.59; 132 eyes). Both studies reported safety outcomes, and moderate-quality evidence showed increased risks of needing cataract surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 371 eyes) and surgery to lower intraocular pressure (RR 7.48, 95% CI 3.94 to 14.19; 599 eyes) in the implant group compared with standard-of-care therapy through two years of follow-up. No studies compared dexamethasone implants with standard-of-care therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
After considering both benefits and harms reported from two studies in which corticosteroids implants were compared with standard-of-care therapy, we are unable to conclude that the implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These studies exhibited heterogeneity in design and outcomes that measured efficacy. Pooled findings regarding safety outcomes suggest increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chronic Disease; Drug Implants; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Standard of Care; Uveitis
PubMed: 26866343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier may permit entry for micro-organisms leading to invasive infection in preterm infants. Topical emollients may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breakdown of the developmentally immature epidermal barrier may permit entry for micro-organisms leading to invasive infection in preterm infants. Topical emollients may improve skin integrity and barrier function and thereby prevent invasive infection, a major cause of mortality and morbidity in preterm infants.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of topical application of emollients (ointments, creams, or oils) on the incidence of invasive infection, other morbidity, and mortality in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, previous reviews and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of prophylactic application of topical emollient (ointments, creams, or oils) on the incidence of invasive infection, mortality, other morbidity, and growth and development in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 18 eligible primary publications (21 trial reports). A total of 3089 infants participated in the trials. The risk of bias varied with lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation in half of the trials and lack of blinding of caregivers or investigators in all of the trials being the main potential sources of bias.Eight trials (2086 infants) examined the effect of topical ointments or creams. Most participants were very preterm infants cared for in health-care facilities in high-income countries. Meta-analyses did not show evidence of a difference in the incidence of invasive infection (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.31; low quality evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.03; low quality evidence).Eleven trials (1184 infants) assessed the effect of plant or vegetable oils. Nine of these trials were undertaken in low- or middle-income countries and all were based in health-care facilities rather than home or community settings. Meta-analyses did not show evidence of a difference in the incidence of invasive infection (typical RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01; low quality evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; moderate quality evidence). Infants massaged with vegetable oil had a higher rate of weight gain (about 2.55 g/kg/day; 95% CI 1.76 to 3.34), linear growth (about 1.22 mm/week; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.44), and head growth (about 0.45 mm/week; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70). These meta-analyses contained substantial heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available data do not provide evidence that the use of emollient therapy prevents invasive infection or death in preterm infants in high-, middle- or low-income settings. Some evidence of an effect of topical vegetable oils on neonatal growth exists but this should be interpreted with caution because lack of blinding may have introduced caregiver or assessment biases. Since these interventions are low cost, readily accessible, and generally acceptable, further randomised controlled trials, particularly in both community- and health care facility-based settings in low-income countries, may be justified.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Cross Infection; Dermatitis; Emollients; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Ointments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26824786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001150.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic... Oct 2015Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.
RESULTS
After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.
CONCLUSION
The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.
PubMed: 26557634
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/15640.6589 -
PloS One 2015To investigate the effect of calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS) in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH) and to compare this effect to that of a negative (placebo)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS) in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH) and to compare this effect to that of a negative (placebo) control.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, were searched to identify relevant articles published through January 2015; grey literature (i.e., academic literature that is not formally published) was also searched. Two authors performed data extraction independently and jointly using data collection forms. The primary outcome was the DH pain response to routine activities or to thermal, tactile, evaporative, or electrical stimuli, and the secondary outcome was the side effects of CSPS use. Each study was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk bias. Meta-analysis of studies with the same participant demographics, interventions, controls, assessment methods and follow-up periods was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation System was used to assess the quality of the evidence and the risk of bias across studies.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis demonstrated that toothpaste containing 5% CSPS was more effective than the negative control at relieving dentin sensitivity, with the level of evidence classified as "moderate". In addition, prophylaxis paste containing 15% calcium sodium phosphosilicate was favored over the negative control at reducing post-periodontal therapy hypersensitivity, with the level of evidence categorized as "low". Only two studies reported side effects of CSPS use.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of studies found that calcium sodium phosphosilicate was more effective than the negative control at alleviating DH. Because strong evidence is scarce, high-quality, well-designed clinical trials are required in the future before definitive recommendations can be made.
Topics: Dentin Desensitizing Agents; Dentin Sensitivity; Glass; Humans; Toothpastes
PubMed: 26544035
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140176 -
BMC Oral Health Sep 2015It is important for Dental Professionals to consider the evidence for the effectiveness of the preventive strategies used to maintain good oral health and reduce the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is important for Dental Professionals to consider the evidence for the effectiveness of the preventive strategies used to maintain good oral health and reduce the risk of caries in their patients. Whilst many of the traditional preventive activities, including the recommendation and use of fluoride products and the placement of fissure sealants have a wealth of clinical evidence to support their use, some of the newer preventive agents have a more limited evidence base. In order to investigate the level of scientific support behind one such technology, a systematic literature review was carried out to assess the effectiveness of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) and Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) in the prevention and treatment of early dental caries.
METHODS
A broad search strategy using Medline via OvidSP and EMBASE was performed in order to capture all published studies to related Casein Phosphopeptide-Amorphous Calcium Phosphate. In addition to the above searches the terms "CPP ACP" and "casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium phosphate" were searched using PREMEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials of participants of any age, comparing the use of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) or Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) to a routine oral care regimen and reporting recognised clinical outcome measures for early caries lesions. Only research studies in English were selected.
RESULTS
7576 articles were identified, but the majority were duplicates. Once these were removed 172 articles were inspected and the focus on 'CPP-ACP formulations of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) and Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) resulted in 29 articles being selected, and of these 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered acceptable for the systematic review.
DISCUSSION
The overall findings of this review did not show any significant benefits of using Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) products over brushing with a fluoride toothpaste for the prevention of early dental caries. With regard to the regression of white spot lesions in orthodontic patients there is a tendency towards a benefit for the use of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) but the quality of evidence is limited. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of Tooth Mousse Plus® (MI Paste Plus) over Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) at this time.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required prior to the widespread recommendation of Tooth Mousse products for the prevention and treatment of early dental caries in the general population.
Topics: Cariostatic Agents; Caseins; Dental Caries; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Toothpastes
PubMed: 26408042
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0095-6 -
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and... 2015Patients in acute and long-term care settings receive daily routine skin care, including washing, bathing, and showering, often followed by application of lotions,... (Review)
Review
Patients in acute and long-term care settings receive daily routine skin care, including washing, bathing, and showering, often followed by application of lotions, creams, and/or ointments. These personal hygiene and skin care activities are integral parts of nursing practice, but little is known about their benefits or clinical efficacy. The aim of this article was to summarize the empirical evidence supporting basic skin care procedures and interventions and to develop a clinical algorithm for basic skin care. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched and afterward a forward search was conducted using Scopus and Web of Science. In order to evaluate a broad range of basic skin care interventions systematic reviews, intervention studies, and guidelines, consensus statements and best practice standards also were included in the analysis. One hundred twenty-one articles were read in full text; 41documents were included in this report about skin care for prevention of dry skin, prevention of incontinence-associated dermatitis and prevention of skin injuries. The methodological quality of the included publications was variable. Review results and expert input were used to create a clinical algorithm for basic skin care. A 2-step approach is proposed including general and special skin care. Interventions focus primarily on skin that is either too dry or too moist. The target groups for the algorithm are adult patients or residents with intact or preclinical damaged skin in care settings. The goal of the skin care algorithm is a first attempt to provide guidance for practitioners to improve basic skin care in clinical settings in order to maintain or increase skin health.
Topics: Algorithms; Dermatitis; Evidence-Based Nursing; Humans; Long-Term Care; Self Care; Skin Care
PubMed: 26165590
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000162 -
BMC Ophthalmology Apr 2015This objective of the review and analysis is to demonstrate that acyclovir (ACV) 3% ophthalmic ointment is superior to idoxuridine (IDU) in treating herpetic keratitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This objective of the review and analysis is to demonstrate that acyclovir (ACV) 3% ophthalmic ointment is superior to idoxuridine (IDU) in treating herpetic keratitis (HK) presenting as dendritic and geographic ulcer sub-types.
DATA SOURCES
Publications in human subjects were identified by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database through April 2011, combining medical subject headings (MESH) "Keratitis, Herpetic/" AND "Acyclovir/" limiting by the key words "topical" OR "ointment" and also restricted to MESH "Administration, Topical/" OR "Ointments/". The results were cross checked with the references used in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1:1-134, 2009 and GlaxoSmithKline clinical documents related to acyclovir.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, double-masked studies in subjects diagnosed with HK with head to head comparator arms of ACV ophthalmic ointment and topical IDU that had actual or calculable healing rates at Day seven.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data independently extracted from identified articles by two authors of this manuscript.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Data from seven randomized, controlled trials (RCT) evaluating 432 subjects that met inclusion criteria (214 were treated with ACV and 218 were treated with IDU) and had Day seven healing rates calculable. All sub-classified lesions were identified as either dendritic ulcers (n = 185) or geographic ulcers (n = 35). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method in Biometrics 10:417-51, 1954 and JNCI 22:719-48, 1959, controlling for study, was performed as the primary analysis using SAS v9. Homogeneity was assessed using Breslow-Day-Tarone (BDT) test in IARC 1:1-32, 1980 and Biometrika 72:91-5, 1985. The analysis was performed with outliers removed to assess their impact.
RESULTS
ACV showed statistically significant greater odds of healing HK at Day seven in all subjects (Odds Ratio 3.95, 95% CI2.60, 6.00, p < 0.0001), in dendritic ulcers (Odds Ratio 4.22, 95% CI: 2.14, 8.32; p < 0.0001) and geographic ulcers (Odds Ratio 5.31, 95% CI: 1.09, 25.93; p = 0.0244).
CONCLUSION
ACV 3% ophthalmic ointment is a valuable intervention for dendritic and geographic corneal ulcers. ACV and IDU were generally well tolerated in the studies reviewed.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Idoxuridine; Keratitis, Herpetic; Ointments; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25928630
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-015-0022-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Pressure 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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 there are many different dressing options including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of the current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on the healing of pressure ulcers in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 June 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June Week 2 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 23 June 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 June 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2014). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of hydrogel dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.
Topics: Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Collagenases; Dextrans; Humans; Hydrogels; Ointments; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25914909
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011226.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is... (Review)
Review
The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is covered in the Cochrane Review of "Pain relief for neonatal circumcision" (Brady‐Fryer 2004). The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Ointments; Prilocaine
PubMed: 25840001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000496.pub2