Wound Healing & Tissue Repair, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Wound & Stoma Care Unit, General Surgical Department, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.
Int Wound J. 2021 Dec;18(6):805-821. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13584. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
The objective of this evidence-based review was to explore whether the evidence supports the use of nutritional supplements in pressure ulcer (PU) prevention strategies. Several electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to May week 32 019), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to May 28, 2019), EBSCO CINAHL (until June 13, 2019), Scopus (until July 9, 2019), and the Web of Science (until June 13, 2019) were searched. No limitation was placed on the year of publication. Studies considered for inclusion were those with adult populations, and only English language texts with available full text were reviewed. AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies included in the systematic review. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence was used to assess the level of evidence. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument (AGREE II) was used to assess guideline article, and Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was also used for cross-sectional studies. The search identified 1761 studies. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 studies were retained of various designs, including 10 systematic reviews, five clinical reviews, three randomised controlled trials, two observational studies, one quasi-experimental study, one cross-sectional study, one cohort study, and one Clinical Guideline. Two were rated as high-quality reviews, 14 were rated as moderate-quality reviews, five were rated as low-quality reviews, and three were rated as critically low-quality reviews. The majority of the reviewed studies were of low-to-moderate quality because of biases in the study design and incomplete data reporting, which did not fulfil the reporting criteria of the appraisal tools. However, the majority of the studies showed a reduction in PU incidence after nutritional supplement though not significant. Whether the use of pharmacological appraisal tools to assess non-pharmacological studies is appropriate is unclear. Regardless of the low-to-moderate quality of the studies in this review, nutritional supplements appear to play a role in PU prevention.
本循证综述的目的是探讨证据是否支持在压疮(PU)预防策略中使用营养补充剂。检索了多个电子数据库,包括 Ovid MEDLINE(1946 年至 019 年 5 月第 32 周)、Ovid EMBASE(1947 年至 2019 年 5 月 28 日)、EBSCO CINAHL(截至 2019 年 6 月 13 日)、Scopus(截至 2019 年 7 月 9 日)和 Web of Science(截至 2019 年 6 月 13 日)。未对出版物年份进行限制。纳入的研究对象为成年人群,仅对可提供全文的英文文本进行了综述。使用 AMSTAR(一种评估系统评价的测量工具)评估系统评价中纳入研究的质量。使用牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)2011 年证据水平评估证据水平。使用评估研究和评价工具(AGREE II)评估指南文章,并使用横断面研究评估工具(AXIS)评估横断面研究。检索共确定了 1761 项研究。应用纳入和排除标准后,保留了 24 项不同设计的研究,包括 10 项系统评价、5 项临床评价、3 项随机对照试验、2 项观察性研究、1 项准实验研究、1 项横断面研究、1 项队列研究和 1 项临床指南。其中 2 项被评为高质量评价,14 项被评为中等质量评价,5 项被评为低质量评价,3 项被评为极低质量评价。由于研究设计存在偏倚和数据报告不完整,大多数综述研究的质量较低至中等,不符合评价工具的报告标准。然而,大多数研究表明,营养补充剂可降低压疮发生率,但无统计学意义。使用药理学评价工具评估非药理学研究是否合适尚不清楚。尽管本综述中的研究质量较低至中等,但营养补充剂似乎在预防压疮方面发挥作用。