Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDumville, Jo C
dc.contributor.authorStubbs, Nikki
dc.contributor.authorKeogh, Samantha J
dc.contributor.authorWalker, Rachel M
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Zhenmi
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-14T01:33:31Z
dc.date.available2017-09-14T01:33:31Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1469-493X
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/14651858.CD011226.pub2
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/81470
dc.description.abstractBackground: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many different dressing options including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of the current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Objectives: To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on the healing of pressure ulcers in any care setting. Search methods: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 June 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June Week 2 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 23 June 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 June 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2014). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of hydrogel dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias. Authors' conclusions: It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofpagefromCD011226-1
dc.relation.ispartofpagetoCD011226-63
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
dc.relation.ispartofvolume2
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care)
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedical and Health Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology and Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111003
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode11
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode17
dc.titleHydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers (Review)
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorWalker, Rachel M.
gro.griffith.authorKeogh, Samantha J.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record