Wound cleansing for treating venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including 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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm2, 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm2). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.

ANTECEDENTES: Las úlceras de la pierna son heridas cutáneas abiertas que se producen por debajo de la rodilla, pero por encima del pie. La mayoría de las úlceras de la pierna son de origen venoso, y se producen como resultado de la insuficiencia venosa, en la que el flujo de sangre a través de las venas se ve afectado; suelen surgir debido a coágulos de sangre y venas varicosas. El tratamiento de compresión (vendas o medias) es el tratamiento principal para las úlceras venosas de la pierna. La limpieza de la herida se puede utilizar para eliminar los contaminantes superficiales, las bacterias, el tejido muerto y el exceso de líquido de la base de la úlcera y de la piel circundante; sin embargo, no se sabe con certeza cuál es la efectividad de la limpieza ni cuál es el mejor método o solución a utilizar. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de la limpieza de heridas, las soluciones de limpieza de heridas y las técnicas de limpieza de heridas para el tratamiento de las úlceras venosas de la pierna. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En septiembre de 2019 se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Heridas (Cochrane Wounds Group), en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (incluido In­Process & Other Non­Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase y EBSCO CINAHL Plus. También se buscaron estudios en curso y no publicados en los registros de ensayos clínicos, y se examinaron las listas de referencias de los estudios incluidos pertinentes, así como de las revisiones, los metanálisis y los informes de tecnología sanitaria para identificar estudios adicionales. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma, la fecha de publicación ni el contexto de los estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se consideraron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararon la limpieza de heridas con ninguna limpieza de heridas, o ECA que compararon diferentes soluciones de limpieza de heridas o diferentes técnicas de limpieza de heridas. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se examinaron los estudios para determinar si eran adecuados para inclusión, el riesgo de sesgo se evaluó mediante la herramienta Cochrane "Risk of bias" y se utilizó el método GRADE para determinar la certeza de la evidencia. Dos autores de la revisión realizaron estas tareas de forma independiente, utilizando criterios predeterminados. Cuando fue posible, se estableció contacto con los autores de los estudios para obtener los datos faltantes. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron cuatro estudios con un total de 254 participantes. Todos los estudios incluyeron comparaciones entre diferentes tipos de soluciones de limpieza, y tres de ellos informaron sobre los desenlaces principales de esta revisión, cicatrización completa de la herida o cambio en el tamaño de la úlcera con el tiempo, o ambos. Dos estudios informaron sobre el desenlace secundario de dolor. Un estudio (27 participantes), que comparó la solución de polihexametileno biguanida (PHMB) con el suero fisiológico para la limpieza de las úlceras venosas de la pierna, no informó sobre ninguno de los desenlaces principales ni secundarios de la revisión. No se identificaron estudios que compararan la limpieza con ninguna limpieza, o que explorara comparaciones entre diferentes técnicas de limpieza. Un estudio (61 participantes) comparó el peróxido de oxígeno acuoso con el agua estéril. No hay certeza de que el peróxido de oxígeno acuoso suponga alguna diferencia en el número de heridas completamente cicatrizadas tras 12 meses de seguimiento (razón de riesgos [RR] 1,88; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 1,10 a 3,20). Del mismo modo, no hay certeza de que el peróxido de oxígeno acuoso suponga alguna diferencia en el cambio del tamaño de la úlcera tras ocho semanas de seguimiento (diferencia de medias [DM] ­1,38 cm2; IC del 95%: ­4,35 a 1,59 cm2). Por último, no hay certeza de que el peróxido de oxígeno acuoso suponga alguna diferencia en la reducción del dolor, evaluada tras ocho semanas de seguimiento mediante una calificación del dolor de 0 a 100 (DM 3,80; IC del 95%: ­10,83 a 18,43). La evidencia para estos desenlaces es de certeza muy baja (se disminuyó la calificación por las limitaciones del estudio y la imprecisión; para el desenlace dolor también se disminuyó la calificación por medidas indirectas). Otro estudio (40 participantes) comparó la propil betaína y la polihexanida con una solución salina. Los autores no presentaron los datos brutos en el informe del estudio, por lo que no fue posible realizar un análisis estadístico independiente de los datos. No se sabe si la propil betaína y la polihexanida suponen alguna diferencia en el número de heridas completamente cicatrizadas, en el cambio del tamaño de la úlcera con el tiempo o en la reducción del dolor de la herida. La evidencia es de certeza muy baja (se disminuyó por las limitaciones del estudio y la imprecisión). El último estudio (126 participantes) comparó el dihidrocloruro de octenidina/fenoxietanol (OHP) con la solución de Ringer. No hay certeza de que el OHP suponga alguna diferencia en el número de heridas cicatrizadas (RR 0,96; IC del 95%: 0,53 a 1,72) ni en el cambio del tamaño de la úlcera con el tiempo (no fue posible realizar un análisis estadístico independiente de los datos disponibles). La evidencia es de certeza muy baja (se disminuyó por las limitaciones del estudio y la imprecisión). Ninguno de los estudios informó sobre la preferencia de los pacientes, la facilidad de uso del método de limpieza, el coste o la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. En un estudio en el que se compara la propil betaína y la polihexanida con la solución salina, los autores no informaron la aparición de eventos adversos. No hay certeza de que el OHP suponga alguna diferencia en el número de eventos adversos en comparación con la solución de Ringer (RR 0,58; IC del 95%: 0,29 a 1,14). La evidencia es de certeza muy baja (se disminuyó por las limitaciones del estudio y la imprecisión). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: En la actualidad se carece de evidencia de ECA para guiar la toma de decisiones sobre la efectividad de la limpieza de heridas en comparación con ninguna limpieza y los enfoques óptimos para la limpieza de las úlceras venosas de la pierna. A partir de los cuatro estudios identificados, no hay evidencia suficiente para demostrar si el uso de la solución PHMB en comparación con el suero fisiológico; el peróxido de oxígeno acuoso en comparación con el agua estéril; la betaína propil y la polihexanida en comparación con un suero fisiológico; o el OHP en comparación con la solución de Ringer supone alguna diferencia en el tratamiento de las úlceras venosas de la pierna. La evidencia de tres de los estudios es de certeza muy baja, debido a las limitaciones de los estudios y a la imprecisión. Un estudio no presentó datos para los desenlaces principales ni secundarios. Podría ser importante realizar más estudios bien diseñados que aborden desenlaces clínicos, de calidad de vida y económicos importantes, sobre la base de la prioridad clínica y para el paciente de esta falta de certeza.

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at-risk populations.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are injuries to the skin and underlying tissues that occur most commonly over bony prominences, such as the hips and heels as a result of pressure and shear forces. PUs cause pain, discomfort, longer hospital stays, and decreased quality of life. They are also very costly to treat and consume substantial parts of healthcare budgets. PUs are largely preventable, and education targeted at patients and their carers is considered important. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient and/or lay carer education on preventing pressure ulceration in at-risk people, in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; Ovid PsycINFO and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies.  There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people of any age at risk of pressure ulceration, and RCTs that recruited people who informally care for someone at risk of pressure ulceration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 11 publications (2261 participants analysed). Seven targeted their intervention at people at risk of ulceration and measured outcomes on these at risk people; two targeted those at risk and their family carers and measured outcomes on the at risk people cared for by their families; and one targeted lay carers only and measured outcomes on the at risk people they cared for. There were two main types of interventions: the provision of information on prevention of pressure ulcers, and the use of different types of education programmes. Provision of information on the prevention of pressure ulcers Three studies (237 participants) reported data for this comparison: two provided information directly to those at risk and their carers, and the third provided information to lay carers. As data could not be pooled we present individual study data. The evidence for primary outcomes is of very low certainty (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for imprecision). We are uncertain whether the combined use of a self-instruction manual and one-to-one patient training and counselling versus a self-instruction manual alone reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.18), or whether carer self-instruction and one-to-one counselling versus self-instruction alone reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.70). We are uncertain whether the use of home-based training, compared with routine ward-based training, reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02). One study explored the secondary outcome patient knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention; however, as usable data were not provided, we were unable to carry out further analysis, and no effect estimate could be calculated. Educational programmes on the prevention of pressure ulcers Seven studies (2024 participants analysed) provided data for this comparison. In all studies the intervention was aimed at people at risk of ulceration. Risk of pressure ulceration One secondary report of an included study reported the primary outcome as time to PU development or occurrence and three studies and one secondary report of an included study reported this as the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU. One study reported the secondary outcome grade of PU and five studies and one secondary report of an included study reported on patient knowledge. There is low certainty evidence of there being no clear difference in the proportion of participants developing a new PU between use of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (PUPCB) and standard care: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.33 (downgraded twice for imprecision). One secondary report of an included study explored whether individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up reduces the mean time to PU occurrence. Not all participants in this study developed a pressure ulcer, therefore the mean time to pressure ulcer occurrence could not be calculated from the data. We are uncertain whether the following three interventions reduce the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU as we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low: individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.30), education delivery (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.78 to 16.38), (downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision); and computerised feedback and one-to-one consultations (no clear data provided), (downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for indirectness). Grade of pressure ulcer There is low certainty evidence that use of a PU prevention care bundle may make no difference to the severity of new PU development when compared with standard care. Patient knowledge We are uncertain whether the following interventions improve patient knowledge: enhanced educational intervention and structured follow-up (mean difference (MD) 9.86, 95% CI 1.55 to 18.17); multi component motivational interviewing/self-management with a multi component education intervention (no clear data provided); Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme (no clear data provided); individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up (no clear data provided); computerised feedback (no clear data provided), structured, patient-centric PU prevention education event (MD 30.15, 95% CI 23.56 to 36.74). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as low or very low (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, or indirectness). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether educational interventions make any difference to the number of new PUs that develop, or to patient knowledge based on evidence from the 10 included studies, which we assessed as of low or very low certainty due to problems with risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness. The low certainty of evidence means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

Nutritional interventions for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are non-healing, or poorly healing, partial, or full-thickness wounds below the ankle. These ulcers are common, expensive to manage and cause significant morbidity and mortality. The presence of a wound has an impact on nutritional status because of the metabolic cost of repairing tissue damage, in addition to the nutrient losses via wound fluid. Nutritional interventions may improve wound healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2020 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; 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 and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, working independently, assessed included RCTs for their risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine RCTs (629 participants). Studies explored oral nutritional interventions as follows: a protein (20 g protein per 200 mL bottle), 1 kcal/mL ready-to-drink, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements; arginine, glutamine and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate supplement; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplements; 250 mg magnesium oxide supplements; 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil; 150,000 IU of vitamin D, versus 300,000 IU of vitamin D; 250 mg magnesium oxide plus 400 IU vitamin E and 50,000 IU vitamin D supplements. The comparator in eight studies was placebo, and in one study a different dose of vitamin D. Eight studies reported the primary outcome measure of ulcer healing; only two studies reported a measure of complete healing. Six further studies reported measures of change in ulcer dimension, these studies reported only individual parameters of ulcer dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth) and not change in ulcer volume. All of the evidence identified was very low certainty. We downgraded it for risks of bias, indirectness and imprecision. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, increases the proportion of ulcers healed at six months more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate supplement increases the proportion of ulcers healed at 16 weeks compared with placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.40). It is uncertain whether the following interventions change parameters of ulcer dimensions over time when compared with placebo; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplement containing 50 mg elemental zinc, 250 mg magnesium oxide supplement, 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil supplement, magnesium and vitamin E co-supplementation and vitamin D supplementation. It is also uncertain whether 150,000 IU of vitamin D, impacts ulcer dimensions when compared with 300,000 IU of vitamin D. Two studies explored some of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, reduces the number of deaths (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.60) or amputations (RR 4.82, 95% CI 0.24 to 95.88) more than placebo. It is uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate supplement increases health-related quality of life at 16 weeks more than placebo (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate supplement reduces the numbers of new ulcers (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51), or amputations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.69) more than placebo. None of the included studies reported the secondary outcomes cost of intervention, acceptability of the intervention (or satisfaction) with respect to patient comfort, length of patient hospital stay, surgical interventions, or osteomyelitis incidence. One study exploring the impact of arginine, glutamine and ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate supplement versus placebo did not report on any relevant outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with no nutritional supplementation, or compared with a different dose of nutritional supplementation, remains uncertain, with eight studies showing no clear benefit or harm. It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in rates of adverse events, amputation rate, development of new foot ulcers, or quality of life, between nutritional interventions and placebo. More research is needed to clarify the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

Risk assessment tools for the prevention of pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Use of pressure ulcer risk assessment tools or scales is a component of the assessment process used to identify individuals at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Use of a risk assessment tool is recommended by many international pressure ulcer prevention guidelines, however it is not known whether using a risk assessment tool makes a difference to patient outcomes. We conducted a review to provide a summary of the evidence pertaining to pressure ulcer risk assessment in clinical practice, and this is the third update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether using structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools, in any healthcare setting, reduces the incidence of pressure ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including 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 and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools with no structured pressure ulcer risk assessment, or with unaided clinical judgement, or RCTs comparing the use of different structured pressure ulcer risk assessment tools. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies in this review (1,487 participants). We identified no new trials for this latest update.Both studies were undertaken in acute-care hospitals. In one study, patients were eligible if they had a Braden score of 18 or less. In the second study all admitted patients were eligible for inclusion, once they were expected to have a hospital stay of more than three days and they had been in hospital for no more than 24 hours before baseline assessment took place. In the first study, most of the participants were medical patients; no information on age or gender distribution was provided. In the second study, 50.3% (619) of the participants were male, with a mean age of 62.6 years (standard deviation (SD): 19.3), and 15.4% (190) were admitted to oncology wards.The two included studies were three-armed studies. In the first study the three groups were: Braden risk assessment tool and training (n = 74), clinical judgement and training (n = 76) and clinical judgement alone (n = 106); follow-up was eight weeks. In the second study the three groups were: Waterlow risk assessment tool (n = 411), clinical judgement (n = 410) and Ramstadius risk assessment tool (n = 410); follow-up was four days. Both studies reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence and one study also reported the secondary outcome, severity of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether use of the Braden risk assessment tool and training makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement and training (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.77; 150 participants), or compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement alone (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68; 180 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for imprecision).Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.81; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.90; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.13; 821 participants), or risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.39; 821 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.15; 821 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.79 to 7.89; 821 participants). Similarily, risk assessment using the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to pressure ulcer severity, when compared to risk assessment using clinical judgement (pressure ulcers of all stages: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 820 participants; stage 1 pressure ulcers: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.68; 820 participants; stage 2 pressure ulcers: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.65; 820 participants). We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low (downgraded once for study limitations and once for imprecision).The studies did not report the secondary outcomes of time to ulcer development, or pressure ulcer prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified two studies which evaluated the effect of risk assessment on pressure ulcer incidence. Based on evidence from one study, we are uncertain whether risk assessment using the Braden tool makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, compared with training and risk assessment using clinical judgement, or risk assessment using clinical judgement alone. Risk assessment using the Waterlow tool, or the Ramstadius tool may make little or no difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or severity, compared with clinical judgement. The low, or very low certainty of evidence available from the included studies is not reliable enough to suggest that the use of structured and systematic pressure ulcer risk assessment tools reduces the incidence, or severity of pressure ulcers.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (DermalexTM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the DermalexTM group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

Organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, which are a localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. While individual patient safety and quality care stem largely from direct healthcare practitioner-patient interactions, each practitioner-patient wound-care contact may be constrained or enhanced by healthcare organisation of services. Research is needed to demonstrate clearly the effect of different provider-orientated approaches to pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different provider-orientated interventions targeted at the organisation of health services, on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, which enrolled people at risk of, or people with existing pressure ulcers, were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded a total of 3172 citations and, following screening and application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we deemed four studies eligible for inclusion. These studies reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence or pressure ulcer healing, or both.One controlled before-and-after study explored the impact of transmural care (a care model that provided activities to support patients and their family/partners and activities to promote continuity of care), among 62 participants with spinal cord injury. It is unclear whether transmural care leads to a difference in pressure ulcer incidence compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).One RCT explored the impact of hospital-in-the-home care, among 100 older adults. It is unclear whether hospital-in-the-home care leads to a difference in pressure ulcer incidence risk compared with hospital admission (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.98; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).A third study (cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial), explored the impact of being cared for by enhanced multidisciplinary teams (EMDT), among 161 long-term-care residents. The analyses of the primary outcome used measurements of 201 pressure ulcers from 119 residents. It is unclear if EMDT reduces the pressure ulcer incidence rate compared with usual care (hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear whether there is a difference in the number of wounds healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.87; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear whether there is a difference in the reduction in surface area, with and without EMDT, (healing rate 1.006; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.03; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear if EMDT leads to a difference in time to complete healing (HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.78, very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).The final study (quasi-experimental cluster trial), explored the impact of multidisciplinary wound care among 176 nursing home residents. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the number of pressure ulcers healed between multidisciplinary care, or usual care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.42; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision). It is unclear if this type of care leads to a difference in time to complete healing compared with usual care (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded twice for very serious study limitations and twice for very serious imprecision).In all studies the certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias and imprecision. We downgraded the evidence due to study limitations, which included selection and attrition bias, and sample size. Secondary outcomes, such as adverse events were not reported in all studies. Where they were reported it was unclear if there was a difference as the certainty of evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the impact of organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers remains unclear. Overall, GRADE assessments of the evidence resulted in judgements of very low-certainty evidence. The studies were at high risk of bias, and outcome measures were imprecise due to wide confidence intervals and small sample sizes, meaning that additional research is required to confirm these results. The secondary outcomes reported varied across the studies and some were not reported. We judged the evidence from those that were reported (including adverse events), to be of very low certainty.

Education of healthcare professionals for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including 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 and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.

Antenatal maternal education for improving postnatal perineal healing for women who have birthed in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: The female perineum becomes suffused and stretched during pregnancy, and further strain during vaginal childbirth contributes to approximately 85% of women experiencing some degree of trauma to the perineal region. Multiple factors play a role in the type and severity of trauma experienced, including parity, delivery method, and local practices. There is ongoing debate about best midwifery practice to reduce perineal trauma. Once perineal trauma has occurred, treatment also varies greatly, depending on its degree and severity, local practice and customs, and personal preference. In order to optimise wound-healing outcomes, it is important that wounds are assessed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. A perineal wound may cause significant physical and/or psychological impact in the short or long term, however little evidence is available on this subject.Antenatal education serves to prepare women and their partners for pregnancy, delivery and the postpartum period. The delivery of this education varies widely in type, content, and nature. This review examined antenatal education which is specifically tailored towards perineal care and wound healing in the postnatal period via formal channels. Appropriate patient education positively impacts on wound-healing rates and compliance with wound care. Risk factors that contribute to the breakdown of wounds and poor healing rates may be addressed antenatally in order to optimise postnatal wound healing. It is important to assess whether or not antenatal wound-care education positively affects perineal healing, in order to empower women to incorporate best practice, evidence-based treatment with this important aspect of self-care in the immediate postnatal period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who have experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (8th September 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8th September 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which referred to all formal methods of antenatal education and addressed care of a potential perineal wound as a result of a tear or episiotomy, which was experienced by pregnant women who planned to give birth within a hospital setting.Trials using a cluster-RCT and a quasi-randomised design would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies published in abstract form would have been eligible for inclusion in this review, but none were identified.We planned to consider all formal methods of antenatal education which addressed care of a perineal wound. We also planned to consider all contact points where there was an opportunity for formal education, including midwifery appointments, antenatal education classes, obstetrician appointments, general practitioner appointments and physiotherapist appointments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. We excluded one study and one other study is ongoing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We set out to evaluate the RCT evidence pertaining to the impact of antenatal education on perineal wound healing in postnatal women who have birthed in a hospital setting, and who experienced a break in the skin of the perineum as a result of a tear or episiotomy, or both. However, no studies met the inclusion criteria. There is a lack of evidence concerning whether or not antenatal education relating to perineal wound healing in this cohort of women will change the outcome for these women in relation to wound healing, infection rate, re-attendance or re-admission to hospital, pain, health-related quality of life, maternal bonding, and negative emotional experiences. Further study is warranted in this area given the significant physical, psychological and economic impact of perineal wounds, and the large proportion of childbearing women who have experienced a postnatal wound. The benefits of any future research in this field would be maximised by incorporating women in a range of socio-economic groups, and with a range of healthcare options. This research could take both a qualitative and a quantitative approach and examine the outcomes identified in this review in order to assess fully the potential benefits of a tailored antenatal package, and to make recommendations for future practice. There is currently no evidence to inform practice in this regard.

Bed rest for pressure ulcer healing in wheelchair users.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful, and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. International guidelines suggest bed rest as a component of the treatment strategy to manage pressure ulcers among wheelchair users. The potential benefits and risks need to be considered when assessing the effectiveness of bed rest as an intervention for treating pressure ulcers in this population. Therefore, it was important to search and appraise existing research evidence in order to determine the impact of bed rest on the healing of pressure ulcers in wheelchair users. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of bed rest on pressure ulcer healing, in wheelchair users, of any age, who are living or being cared for in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and conference proceedings and for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that evaluated the impact of bed rest on healing pressure ulcers in wheelchair users. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We set out to evaluate the research evidence, from randomised controlled trials, of the impact of bed rest on pressure ulcer healing in wheelchair users. No study met the inclusion criteria. It is uncertain whether bed rest makes a difference to the healing of pressure ulcers in wheelchair users. Well-designed trials addressing important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are required.

Clinical profile of the SEM Scanner - Modernizing pressure injury care pathways using Sub-Epidermal Moisture (SEM) scanning.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure injuries (PIs) are a global health concern. Current PI care standards, including skin tissue assessments (STA) and health care professional (HCP) clinical judgment, diagnose visibly manifested PIs on the skin's surface, i.e. after the damage has already occurred. However, objective assessment of early-stage, non-visible, pressure-induced tissue damage is clinically impossible within the current standard of care. The SEM Scanner is the first device authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that addresses this unmet clinical need. AREAS COVERED: This review describes the novel sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) scanning technology of the device and summarizes the clinical safety and efficacy data that support the use of the scanner in routine PI care practice. EXPERT OPINION: The clinical strategy for developing the SEM Scanner is noteworthy. SEM technology using anatomy-specific data enables HCPs to provide early PI prevention interventions before visible signs of tissue damage develop while the damage is still reversible. When adopted into routine practice, the device identifies an increased risk of developing PIs 5 days (median) earlier than STA. FDA clearance was based on bench studies and data from three foundational trials that demonstrate the diagnostic accuracy of the device algorithm significantly exceeding clinical judgment (p < 0.001).

Interventions for preventing infectious complications in haemodialysis patients with central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVC) continue to play a prominent role in haemodialysis vascular access with 46% to 70% of patients commencing haemodialysis via a CVC. CVC access is associated with catheter-related infections, increased patient hospitalisations and death due to infection. A variety of interventions are used to prevent CVC infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic topical antimicrobials, topical antiseptics, medicated and non-medicated dressings on infectious complications among haemodialysis patients with CVC. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating any intervention that prevented infectious complications among haemodialysis patients with CVC. We excluded antimicrobial impregnated CVC or CVC using locking solutions with antimicrobial properties. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed study quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD). MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (786 patients) were included. Mupirocin ointment reduced the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.17, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.43) and had a significant effect on catheter-related infections caused by S. aureus. The risk of catheter-related bacteraemia was reduced by polysporin (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.86) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.10, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.72). Subgroup analysis suggested mupirocin (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.01 to 2.13) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.98) had no effect on all-cause mortality while polysporin ointment showed a significant reduction (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.74). Mortality related to infection was not reduced by mupirocin, polysporin or povidone-iodine ointment. Topical honey did not reduce the risk of exit site infection (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.11) or catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.73). Transparent polyurethane dressing compared to dry gauze dressing did not reduce the risk of CVC or exit site infection, or catheter-related bacteraemia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mupirocin ointment appears effective in reducing the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia. Insufficient reporting on mupirocin resistance was noted and needs to be considered in future studies. A lack of high quality data on the routine use of povidone-iodine ointment, polysporin ointment and topical honey warrant larger RCTs. Insufficient data were available to determine which dressing type (transparent polyurethane or dry gauze dressing) has the lowest risk of catheter-related infections.

Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure, from lying or sitting on a particular part of the body, results in oxygen deprivation to the affected area. If a patient with an existing pressure ulcer continues to lie or bear weight on the affected area, the tissues become depleted of blood flow and there is no oxygen or nutrient supply to the wound, and no removal of waste products from the wound, all of which are necessary for healing. Patients who cannot reposition themselves require assistance. International best practice advocates the use of repositioning as an integral component of a pressure ulcer management strategy. This review has been conducted to clarify the role of repositioning in the management of patients with pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (5 December 2008); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3 2008); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 49); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to November Week 4 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing repositioning with no repositioning, or RCTs comparing different repositioning techniques, or RCTs comparing different repositioning frequencies for the review. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were only to be considered in the absence of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread use of repositioning as a component of the management plan for individuals with existing pressure ulcers, no randomised trials exist that assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether repositioning patients improves the healing rates of pressure ulcers. The effect of repositioning on pressure ulcer healing needs to be evaluated.