What factors influence community wound care in the UK? A focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

OBJECTIVES: Research has found unwarranted variation across community wound care services in the North of England, with underuse of evidence-based practice and overuse of interventions where there is little or no known patient benefit. This study explored the factors that influence care in community settings for people with complex wounds, to develop a deeper understanding of the current context of wound care and variation in practice. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to structure the questions, prompts and analyses. SETTING: Community healthcare settings in the North of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six clinical professionals who cared for patients with complex wounds and eight non-clinical professionals who were responsible for procuring wound care products participated across six focus group interviews. RESULTS: We found the TDF domains: environmental context and resources, knowledge, skills, social influences and behaviour regulation to best explain the variation in wound care and the underuse of research evidence. Factors such as financial pressures were perceived as having a negative effect on the continuity of care, the availability of wound care services and workloads. We found practice to be mainly based on experiential knowledge and personal preference and highly influenced by colleagues, patients and the pharmaceutical industry, although not by research evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new insight into the role that experiential learning and social influences play in determining wound care and on the limited influence of research. Workforce pressures and limited resources are perceived to impede care by reducing patient access to services and the ability to provide holistic care. Participative collaboration between university and healthcare organisations may offer a supportive route to addressing issues, implementing sustainable changes to practice and service delivery and a resolute commitment to research use among clinical professionals.

Antiseptics for burns.

BACKGROUND: Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I2 = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I2 = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I2 = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I2 = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I2 = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: 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 promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: 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. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality.Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence).Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported.There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanide swab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD -2.03, 95% CI -2.66 to -1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations.

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: 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 options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate 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 six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds.

BACKGROUND: Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of compression hosiery versus compression bandages in treatment of venous leg ulcers (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV, VenUS IV): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Drawbacks exist with the standard treatment (four-layer compression bandages) for venous leg ulcers. We have therefore compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two-layer compression hosiery with the four-layer bandage for the treatment of such ulcers. METHODS: We undertook this pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups in 34 centres in England and Northern Ireland. The centres were community nurse teams or services, family doctor practices, leg ulcer clinics, tissue viability clinics or services, and wound clinics. Participants were aged 18 years or older with a venous leg ulcer and an ankle brachial pressure index of at least 0·8, and were tolerant of high compression. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive two-layer compression hosiery or a four-layer bandage, using a remote randomisation service and prevalidated computer randomisation program. Participants were stratified by ulcer duration and ulcer area with permuted blocks (block sizes four and six). The primary endpoint was time to ulcer healing, with a maximum follow-up of 12 months. Although participants and health-care providers were not masked to treatment allocation, the primary endpoint was measured by masked assessment of photographs. Primary analysis was intention to treat with Cox regression, with adjustment for ulcer area, ulcer duration, physical mobility, and centre. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN49373072. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 457 participants to the two treatment groups: 230 to two-layer hosiery and 227 to the four-layer bandage, of whom 453 (230 hosiery and 223 bandage) contributed data for analysis. Median time to ulcer healing was 99 days (95% CI 84-126) in the hosiery group and 98 days (85-112) in the bandage group, and the proportion of ulcers healing was much the same in the two groups (70·9% hosiery and 70·4% bandage). More hosiery participants changed their allocated treatment (38·3% hosiery vs 27·0% bandage; p=0·02). 300 participants had 895 adverse events, of which 85 (9·5%) were classed as serious but unrelated to trial treatment. INTERPRETATION: Two-layer compression hosiery is a viable alternative to the four-layer bandage-it is equally as effective at healing venous leg ulcers. However, a higher rate of treatment changes in participants in the hosiery group than in the bandage group suggests that hosiery might not be suitable for all patients. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (07/60/26).

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound treatments in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies (535 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings, alginate dressings and a topical treatment. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing or a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing and a topical cream containing plant extracts. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing or a topical cream containing plant extracts. 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.

The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study.

OBJECTIVES: It is possible for baseline imbalances to occur between treatment groups for one or more variables in a randomized controlled trial, although the identification and detection of baseline imbalances remain controversial. If trials with baseline imbalances are combined in a meta-analysis, then this may result in misleading conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The identification and consequences of baseline imbalances in meta-analyses are discussed. Metaregression using mean baseline scores as a covariate is proposed as a potential method for adjusting baseline imbalances within meta-analysis. We will use a recent systematic review looking at the effect of calcium supplements on weight as an illustrative case study. RESULTS: Meta-analysis conducted using the mean final values of the treatment groups as the outcome resulted in an apparent, statistically significant, treatment effect. However, using a meta-analysis of baseline values, this was shown to be due to the baseline imbalance between treatment groups, rather than as a result of any intervention received by the participants. Applying the method of metaregression demonstrated that there was in fact a smaller, statistically insignificant effect between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The meta-analyst should always consider the possibility of baseline imbalances and adjustments should be made wherever possible.

Acupuncture as a potential treatment for non-cardiac chest pain--a survey.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the level of interest in acupuncture as a treatment option for non-cardiac chest pain and to identify the factors associated with this interest. BACKGROUND: Non-cardiac chest pain is known to be a prevalent condition in the general population. Treatment options are limited. Given that acupuncture has a potential role in the treatment of chronic pain, this study was designed to establish the levels of interest in acupuncture among people with continuing non-cardiac chest pain. METHODS: This small study formed part of a larger retrospective cohort study, and was conducted with all 235 people who were given a diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain at the Rapid Access Chest Pain Unit in York within a 14 month period. We collected data on whether people continued to experience chest pain, and if so, whether they had considered, or would consider, acupuncture as a treatment. We used ordinal logistic regression to investigate potential covariates, including sex and age, that might be associated with this interest. RESULTS: In total, 161 (69%) participants returned questionnaires, 75 (47%) of whom were experiencing continued chest pain with a median duration of 5.4 months. Of these participants, 42% reported that they would consider acupuncture, 36% reported that they would not, and 22% did not know. In the ordinal regression model, we found no covariates significantly associated with the strength of participants' interest in acupuncture. CONCLUSION: People with continuing non-cardiac chest pain after attending a Rapid Access Chest Pain Unit have shown considerable interest in acupuncture as a primary care treatment option.

A systematic review of the effects of calcium supplementation on body weight.

Animal studies and epidemiological studies have suggested that Ca supplementation (with Ca supplements or dairy products) may be associated with weight loss in human adults. We aimed to assess whether any association was present by reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials in human subjects. The study was a systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that used Ca supplementation as an intervention in persons 18 or more years of age, and that reported body weight as a final outcome. A total of thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. There was no association between the increased consumption of either Ca supplements or dairy products and weight loss after adjusting for differences in baseline weights between the control and intervention groups (P=0.19 and 0.85, respectively). We therefore concluded that Ca supplementation has no statistically significant association with a reduction in body weight.

Solubilisation of tomato fruit pectins by ascorbate: a possible non-enzymic mechanism of fruit softening.

The aim of this work was to test the hypothesis that endogenous ascorbate, released into the apoplast by membrane permeabilisation early in fruit ripening, could promote the solubilisation and depolymerisation of polysaccharides, and thus contribute to fruit softening. In vitro, ascorbate (1 mM), especially in the presence of traces of either Cu2+ or H2O2, solubilised up to 40% of the total pectin from the alcohol-insoluble residue of mature-green tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit. Solubilisation was due to the action of ascorbate-generated hydroxyl radicals (*OH), which can cause non-enzymic scission of polysaccharides. The pectins solubilised by ascorbate in vitro were polydisperse (4-1,000 kDa), partially esterified and galactose-rich. Excised pieces of living tomato fruit released ascorbate into the medium (apoplast); the ability of different tissues to do this increased in the order pericarp < placenta < locule. In all three tissues, but especially in the locule, the ability to release ascorbate increased during ripening. The Cu content of each tissue also increased during ripening, whereas neither Fe nor Mn showed a similar trend. We suggest that progressively increasing levels of Cu and ascorbate in the fruit apoplast would lead to elevated *OH production there and thus to non-enzymic scission of pectins during ripening. Such scission could contribute to the natural softening of the fruit. De-esterified citrus pectin was more susceptible to ascorbate-induced scission in vitro than methylesterified pectin, suggesting a possible new significance for pectin methylesterase activity in fruit ripening. In conclusion, non-enzymic mechanisms of fruit softening should be considered alongside the probable roles of hydrolases, xyloglucan endotransglucosylases and expansins.