A Meta-analysis to Compare Four-layer to Short-stretch Compression Bandaging for Venous Leg Ulcer Healing.

Q2 Nursing Ostomy Wound Management Pub Date : 2018-05-01
Magali Rezende De Carvalho, Bruno Utzeri Peixoto, Isabelle Andrade Silveira, Beatriz G R Baptista de Oliveria
{"title":"A Meta-analysis to Compare Four-layer to Short-stretch Compression Bandaging for Venous Leg Ulcer Healing.","authors":"Magali Rezende De Carvalho,&nbsp;Bruno Utzeri Peixoto,&nbsp;Isabelle Andrade Silveira,&nbsp;Beatriz G R Baptista de Oliveria","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Compression therapy is the standard of care for venous leg ulcers (VLUs), and some evidence suggests 4-layer compression is more effective than short-stretch bandages. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of these 2 compression bandages for venous ulcer healing. In March 2016, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. Databases used included Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Latin American and Caribbean of Health Sciences Information System. Search terms were varicose ulcer, venous leg ulcer, venous ulceration, leg ulcer, compression bandages, compressive therapy, multilayer system, four-layer system, elastic bandages, short-stretch bandage, short-stretch system, and inelastic bandage. No publication time or language restrictions were imposed, but findings subjected to analysis were limited to results of research that reported healing and healing time using 4-layer and short-stretch compression only. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data extracted included study design, country, target population demographics, VLU clinical aspects at baseline, sample size, interventions applied, follow-up period, complete healing, and healing time as outcomes. Relative risk was calculated considering a 95% confidence interval for dichotomous variables (complete healing), and heterogeneity was statistically assessed among the studies using the chi-squared test assuming random effect when I2 ≥50%. The search yielded 557 papers; 21 met the study criteria for full-text analysis, and 7 met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. The studies included 1437 patients, average age 70 (range 23-97) years with 1446 venous leg ulcers. Most (5) studies were classified as being at low risk of bias. At 12 and 16 weeks, 259 ulcers (51.08%) healed completely in the 4-layer and 234 (46.34%) in the short-stretch bandage groups, respectively (P = .41). At 24 weeks, 268 ulcers (69.07%) in the 4-layer and 257 (62.23%) in the short-stretch bandage groups, respectively, had healed (P = .16). The 2 bandage systems evaluated were similar in achieving complete healing at their respective study endpoints. The average time for healing was 73.6 ± 14.64 days in the 4-layer and 83.8 ± 24.89 days in the short-stretch bandage groups; no meta-analysis was done for this outcome due the inability to retrieve all the individual patient data for each study. The choice of compression system remains at the discretion of the clinicians based on evidence of effectiveness, patient tolerability, and preference. Additional randomized controlled trials to compare various wound and patient outcomes between different compression systems are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":54656,"journal":{"name":"Ostomy Wound Management","volume":"64 5","pages":"30-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ostomy Wound Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Compression therapy is the standard of care for venous leg ulcers (VLUs), and some evidence suggests 4-layer compression is more effective than short-stretch bandages. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of these 2 compression bandages for venous ulcer healing. In March 2016, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. Databases used included Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Latin American and Caribbean of Health Sciences Information System. Search terms were varicose ulcer, venous leg ulcer, venous ulceration, leg ulcer, compression bandages, compressive therapy, multilayer system, four-layer system, elastic bandages, short-stretch bandage, short-stretch system, and inelastic bandage. No publication time or language restrictions were imposed, but findings subjected to analysis were limited to results of research that reported healing and healing time using 4-layer and short-stretch compression only. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data extracted included study design, country, target population demographics, VLU clinical aspects at baseline, sample size, interventions applied, follow-up period, complete healing, and healing time as outcomes. Relative risk was calculated considering a 95% confidence interval for dichotomous variables (complete healing), and heterogeneity was statistically assessed among the studies using the chi-squared test assuming random effect when I2 ≥50%. The search yielded 557 papers; 21 met the study criteria for full-text analysis, and 7 met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. The studies included 1437 patients, average age 70 (range 23-97) years with 1446 venous leg ulcers. Most (5) studies were classified as being at low risk of bias. At 12 and 16 weeks, 259 ulcers (51.08%) healed completely in the 4-layer and 234 (46.34%) in the short-stretch bandage groups, respectively (P = .41). At 24 weeks, 268 ulcers (69.07%) in the 4-layer and 257 (62.23%) in the short-stretch bandage groups, respectively, had healed (P = .16). The 2 bandage systems evaluated were similar in achieving complete healing at their respective study endpoints. The average time for healing was 73.6 ± 14.64 days in the 4-layer and 83.8 ± 24.89 days in the short-stretch bandage groups; no meta-analysis was done for this outcome due the inability to retrieve all the individual patient data for each study. The choice of compression system remains at the discretion of the clinicians based on evidence of effectiveness, patient tolerability, and preference. Additional randomized controlled trials to compare various wound and patient outcomes between different compression systems are warranted.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项比较四层包扎与短时间拉伸包扎在腿部静脉溃疡愈合中的meta分析。
压迫治疗是静脉性腿溃疡(VLUs)的标准治疗方法,一些证据表明4层压迫比短时间拉伸绷带更有效。荟萃分析比较了这两种压迫绷带对静脉溃疡愈合的有效性。2016年3月,对文献进行了系统回顾,以确定随机对照试验。使用的数据库包括Pubmed/MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central、护理及相关卫生文献累积索引、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学信息系统。搜索词为静脉曲张溃疡、腿部静脉性溃疡、静脉性溃疡、腿部溃疡、压缩绷带、压缩治疗、多层系统、四层系统、弹性绷带、短拉伸绷带、短拉伸系统、无弹性绷带。没有发表时间或语言限制,但分析结果仅限于仅使用4层和短拉伸压缩报道愈合和愈合时间的研究结果。采用Jadad量表评估研究的质量。提取的数据包括研究设计、国家、目标人群人口统计、基线VLU临床方面、样本量、采用的干预措施、随访期、完全愈合和愈合时间。相对危险度计算采用二分变量(完全愈合)的95%置信区间,当I2≥50%时假设随机效应,采用卡方检验对研究间的异质性进行统计评估。这次搜索产生了557篇论文;21例符合全文分析的研究标准,7例符合meta分析纳入标准。研究纳入1437例患者,平均年龄70岁(范围23-97),1446例下肢静脉溃疡。大多数(5)项研究被归类为低偏倚风险。12周和16周时,4层组溃疡完全愈合259例(51.08%),短张力绷带组溃疡完全愈合234例(46.34%),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.41)。24周时,4层组268例(69.07%)溃疡愈合,短张力绷带组257例(62.23%)溃疡愈合(P = 0.16)。评估的两种绷带系统在各自的研究终点实现完全愈合方面相似。4层包扎组平均愈合时间为73.6±14.64天,短张力包扎组平均愈合时间为83.8±24.89天;由于无法检索每个研究的所有个体患者数据,因此未对该结果进行荟萃分析。压缩系统的选择仍然由临床医生根据有效性、患者耐受性和偏好的证据来决定。额外的随机对照试验来比较不同压迫系统之间的各种伤口和患者结果是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ostomy Wound Management
Ostomy Wound Management 医学-外科
CiteScore
0.99
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ostomy/Wound Management was founded in March of 1980 as "Ostomy Management." In 1985, this small journal dramatically expanded its content and readership by embracing the overlapping disciplines of ostomy care, wound care, incontinence care, and related skin and nutritional issues and became the premier journal of its kind. Ostomy/Wound Managements" readers include healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines. Today, our readers benefit from contemporary and comprehensive review and research papers that are practical, clinically oriented, and cutting edge. Each published article undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review by members of both the Editorial Advisory Board and the Ad-Hoc Peer Review Panel.
期刊最新文献
Pyoderma gangrenosum and peripheral arterial disease: a case series and literature review Time to refocus on the principles of lower limb ulceration management EWMA 2023 Conference abstracts Effects of local antibiotics in calcium-sulphate granules for the treatment of diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis: a propensity-matched observational study Organisation of NPWT in primary care in Europe – a descriptive survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1