使用 DACC 涂层敷料是否能改善难愈合伤口的临床疗效:系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY International Wound Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1111/iwj.70053
Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Lazaro Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A Lavery, Matthew Malone
{"title":"使用 DACC 涂层敷料是否能改善难愈合伤口的临床疗效:系统综述。","authors":"Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Lazaro Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A Lavery, Matthew Malone","doi":"10.1111/iwj.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case-control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":14451,"journal":{"name":"International Wound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Lazaro Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A Lavery, Matthew Malone\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/iwj.70053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case-control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Wound Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Wound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.70053\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Wound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.70053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关过度使用和抗菌药耐药性的报道促使一些临床医生采用被称为非药物或非抗菌药的替代伤口敷料,但这些敷料仍声称具有抗菌或抑菌活性。在这篇注册于 PROSPERO 的系统综述中,我们评估了 DACC 涂层敷料对慢性难愈合伤口相关结果的有效性的活体临床证据。在构建本系统性综述时,我们采用了建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架作为模板。采用 PICO 格式(人群[或患者]、干预、比较[对照]、结果/s)来确定两个领域(感染控制和伤口愈合)中决定患者疗效的关键临床问题。在 PubMed、OVID、Cochrane 图书馆、临床试验登记处和独立委员会的数据源中进行了系统检索。所有研究的摘要均由两名审稿人独立筛选,然后由另外六名审稿人对记录进行独立评估,再进行全面审查。作者对每项对决策至关重要的结果进行了证据质量评级。在排除重复后,我们从数据库中筛选出 748 条记录,并对 13 条记录进行了全面审查。在全面审查后,我们又排除了 3 条记录,剩下 10 条记录用于数据提取。其中三条记录为叙述性综述,三条为系统性综述,两条为前瞻性非对比性前后研究,一条为前瞻性头对头对比队列研究,一条为回顾性头对头对比队列研究。未发现研究性试验或病例对照研究。经评估,使用 DACC 涂层敷料改善伤口感染和伤口愈合效果的临床证据总体质量很低。目前急需开展设计合理的 RCT 或病例对照研究。所提取的数据并不明确,只有有限甚至没有证据支持使用 DACC 涂层敷料可改善伤口感染或伤口愈合效果。此外,也没有证据表明这种疗法在治疗受感染的难愈合伤口方面优于标准伤口护理或等同于局部抗菌剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: A systematic review.

Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case-control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Wound Journal
International Wound Journal DERMATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.90%
发文量
266
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Editors welcome papers on all aspects of prevention and treatment of wounds and associated conditions in the fields of surgery, dermatology, oncology, nursing, radiotherapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy and podiatry. The Journal accepts papers in the following categories: - Research papers - Review articles - Clinical studies - Letters - News and Views: international perspectives, education initiatives, guidelines and different activities of groups and societies. Calendar of events The Editors are supported by a board of international experts and a panel of reviewers across a range of disciplines and specialties which ensures only the most current and relevant research is published.
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled phase II trial to examine the feasibility of using hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFA) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care-A research protocol. Advancements in seawater immersion wound management: Current treatments and innovations. Antimicrobial effects of a multimodal wound matrix against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an in vitro and an in vivo porcine wound model. Artificial intelligence's suggestions for level of amputation in diabetic foot ulcers are highly correlated with those of clinicians, only with exception of hindfoot amputations. Co-creation and evaluation of an algorithm for the development of a mobile application for wound care among new graduate nurses: A mixed methods study.
×
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