Dumville Jo C, O'Meara Susan, Deshpande Sohan, Speak Katharine
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15(2):CD009110. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009110.pub2.
Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.
To compare the effects of alginate wound dressings with no wound dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus.
We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 January 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to December Week 3 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, January 03, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 52); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 December 2011). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of alginate dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
We included six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.
糖尿病患者足部溃疡是一个常见且严重的全球性健康问题。敷料是溃疡治疗的关键部分,临床医生和患者有多种不同类型可供选择,包括藻酸盐敷料。需要一份清晰且最新的现有证据综述,以促进关于敷料使用的决策。
比较藻酸盐伤口敷料与无伤口敷料或其他替代敷料对糖尿病患者足部溃疡愈合的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane伤口小组专业注册库(检索日期为2012年1月4日);Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆2011年第4期);Ovid MEDLINE(1950年至2011年12月第3周);Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引引文,2012年1月3日);Ovid EMBASE(1980年至2011年第52周);以及EBSCO CINAHL(1982年至2011年12月30日)。没有基于语言或出版日期的限制。
已发表或未发表的随机对照试验(RCT),比较了藻酸盐敷料与替代伤口敷料或无敷料对糖尿病患者足部溃疡治疗中溃疡愈合效果的影响。
两位综述作者独立进行研究选择、偏倚风险评估和数据提取。
本综述纳入了六项研究(375名参与者);这些研究比较了藻酸盐敷料与基本伤口接触敷料、泡沫敷料以及含银纤维水胶体敷料。对两项研究的荟萃分析发现,藻酸盐敷料与基本伤口接触敷料之间无统计学显著差异:风险比(RR)为1.09(95%置信区间为0.66至1.80)。两项比较藻酸盐敷料与泡沫敷料的研究汇总数据显示,溃疡愈合方面无统计学显著差异(RR为0.67,95%置信区间为0.41至1.08)。将抗菌(含银)水胶体敷料与标准藻酸盐敷料进行比较时,糖尿病足部溃疡愈合数量无统计学显著差异(RR为1.40,95%置信区间为0.79至2.47)。所有研究的随访时间都较短(6至12周),且样本量较小。
目前没有研究证据表明藻酸盐伤口敷料在治疗糖尿病患者足部溃疡方面比其他类型的敷料更有效,然而该领域的许多试验规模都非常小。决策者可能希望考虑诸如敷料成本以及每种敷料类型所提供的伤口管理特性(如渗出液管理)等方面。