German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. k.heyer @ uke.de
Dermatology. 2013;226(2):172-84. doi: 10.1159/000348331. Epub 2013 May 22.
Wound dressings are essential in the treatment of chronic wounds and should be selected on valid and recent evidence.
Effectiveness of advanced compared to conventional dressings for chronic wound healing.
Comprehensive literature search, systematic review and meta-analyses of the results of advanced dressing studies on chronic wound treatment. Comprehensiveness and coverage of all relevant studies is the most striking difference in relation to other meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
The mean odds ratio of complete healing was 1.52 favouring advanced over conventional dressings in 65 controlled trials. In 287 study conditions including uncontrolled studies, mean odds were 0.97 (advanced dressings/controlled studies), 0.77 (conventional/controlled) and 0.47 (advanced/uncontrolled). The overall healing rate was 33%. When causal treatment was applied, a reduced effect was observed. The consideration of all types of chronic wounds, advanced wound dressings and studies resulted in more study effects, more reliable estimates of mean effects and more statistical power. These differences in the design are likely to explain the differences in the meta-analytic results.
A general superiority of advanced dressings on complete healing was shown. The generalizability of the results is limited by the methodological and report quality within studies identified, unexplained heterogeneity in study effects and possibly by publication bias.
在慢性伤口治疗中,伤口敷料是必不可少的,应根据有效且最新的证据进行选择。
比较高级敷料与传统敷料在慢性伤口愈合方面的效果。
对慢性伤口治疗中高级敷料研究结果进行全面的文献检索、系统评价和荟萃分析。与其他荟萃分析和系统评价相比,最显著的差异在于全面性和涵盖了所有相关研究。
在 65 项对照试验中,高级敷料组完全愈合的平均优势比为 1.52。在包括未对照研究的 287 种研究条件下,平均优势比分别为 0.97(高级敷料/对照研究)、0.77(传统敷料/对照研究)和 0.47(高级敷料/未对照研究)。总体愈合率为 33%。当应用因果治疗时,观察到效果降低。考虑到所有类型的慢性伤口、高级伤口敷料和研究,会产生更多的研究效果、更可靠的平均效果估计值和更多的统计能力。设计上的这些差异可能解释了荟萃分析结果的差异。
高级敷料在完全愈合方面具有总体优势。研究中确定的方法学和报告质量、研究效果的未解释异质性以及可能的发表偏倚限制了结果的普遍性。