Development of a core outcome set for use in research evaluations of interventions for venous leg ulceration: International eDelphi consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Venous leg ulceration (VLU) is a chronic, recurring condition with associated pain, malodour, impaired mobility and susceptibility to infection which in turn significantly impacts an individual's health-related quality of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to determine the efficacy of interventions to improve outcomes. To be useful, these outcomes should be consistently and fully reported across RCTs. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes which should be, at a minimum, reported in all RCTs for a given indication including that of VLU. AIM: To gain consensus on which outcome domains and outcomes should be considered as core and therefore included in all RCTs of interventions in VLU treatment. METHOD: Two sequential, two round e-Delphi surveys were completed. The first gained consensus on core outcome domains and the second on core outcomes within those domains. Participants included: people with direct experience of having VLUs and their carers, healthcare professionals whose practice included VLU care and researchers within wound care (clinical, academic, industry). RESULTS: Five outcome domains; healing, pain, quality of life, resource use and adverse events, and 11 outcomes were rated as core by participants. The patient and not the limb or ulcer was the preferred unit of analysis for reporting. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend investigators report on all five outcome domains, regardless of the type of intervention being evaluated. Future research is needed to identify measurement methods for the 11 identified outcomes. We also recommend investigators follow the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Abemaciclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of abemaciclib (Verzenios) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in combination with Newcastle University, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarised the Company Submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS and also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. A systematic literature review identified the MonarchE trial, an ongoing, open-label, randomised, double blind trial involving 5637 people comparing abemaciclib in combination with ET versus ET alone. The trial included two cohorts that used different inclusion criteria to define high risk of recurrence. The ERG considered Cohort 1 as an adequate representation of this population and the AC concluded that Cohort 1 was generalisable to National Health Service clinical practice. Trial results showed improvements in invasive disease-free survival for the abemaciclib arm, which was considered an appropriate surrogate outcome. The ERG believed that the modelling structure presented in the de novo economic model by the company was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Areas of uncertainty included the extrapolation of long-term survival curves, the duration of treatment effect and treatment waning, and the proportion of patients who receive other CDK4/6 treatments for metastatic disease after receiving abemaciclib. ICER estimates were £9164 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the company's base-case and £17,810 for the ERG's base-case. NICE recommended abemaciclib with ET as an option for the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

Identifying outcomes reported in trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration for a core outcome set development: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulceration is a chronic, recurring, condition causing significant patient morbidity. Randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for venous leg ulceration provide evidence for clinical decision-making. For trial findings to be useful, outcomes measured need to be clinically meaningful, and consistently and fully reported across trials. A core outcome set is an agreed and standardised set of outcomes which should be, as a minimum, reported in all trials for a given indication. AIM: To identify the outcome domains and outcomes reported in trials of interventions for venous leg ulceration. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was carried out. Randomised controlled trials within Cochrane systematic reviews looking at venous leg ulceration interventions and qualitative studies exploring venous leg ulceration were included. RESULTS: The review identified 807 outcomes from randomised controlled trials and 15 outcomes from qualitative studies, and these were grouped into 11 outcome domains: healing, patient reported symptoms, clinician reported symptoms, carer reported symptoms, life impacts, clinical signs, clinical measurement, performance of the intervention, resource use (supplies and clinician time) and adverse events. The outcome domain 'healing' included 111 outcomes, 'symptoms' 109, 'life impacts' 30, 'clinical signs' 88, 'clinical measurement' 184, 'performance of the intervention' 58, 'resource use' 52 and 'adverse events' 190. CONCLUSION: The scoping review identified a large number of outcomes (n = 822) across 11 related outcome domains, supporting the need for a core outcome set.

Development of a core outcome set for venous leg ulceration (CoreVen) research evaluations (protocol).

BACKGROUND: A venous leg ulcer is a chronic leg wound caused by poor venous blood circulation in the lower limbs. It is a recurring condition causing pain, malodour, reduced mobility, and depression. Randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers provide important evidence to inform clinical decision-making. However, for findings to be useful, outcomes need to be clinically meaningful, consistently reported across trials, and fully reported. Research has identified the large number of outcomes reported in venous leg ulcer trials, impacting both synthesis of results, and clinical decision-making. To address this, a core outcome set will be developed. A core outcome set is an agreed standardised set of outcomes which should be, as a minimum, measured and reported in all trials which evaluate treatment effectiveness for a given indication. A core outcome set has the potential to reduce research waste, improve the utility of RCTs, reduce reporting bias, facilitate treatment comparisons across different sources of evidence and expedite the production of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and evidence-based clinical guidelines. AIM: The aim of this project is to develop a core outcome set for research evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for treating venous leg ulceration. METHODS: Through a scoping review of the literature on venous leg ulceration, we will firstly identify a list of candidate outcome domains (broad categories in relation to what is being measured) from randomised controlled trials and qualitative research, and outcomes (specific methods in relation to what is being measured). In two further stages, we will use the resulting lists of outcome domains and outcomes to design two online surveys. A range of stakeholders will be invited to participate in the surveys and they will be asked to indicate which outcome domains and outcomes are most important and should be considered as core in future research reports.

Alginate dressings for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic, complex wound associated with considerable cost to patients and healthcare providers. To aid healing, primary wound contact dressings are usually applied to ulcers beneath compression devices. Alginate dressings are used frequently and there is a variety of alginate products on the market, however, the evidence base to guide dressing choice is sparse.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative dressings, non-dressing treatments or no dressing, with or without concurrent compression therapy, on the healing of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: For this first update, in March 2015, we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group 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. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of any type of alginate dressing in the treatment of venous ulcers were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was undertaken when deemed feasible and appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs (295 participants) were included in this review. All were identified during the original review. The overall risk of bias was high for two RCTs and unclear for three. One RCT compared different proprietary alginate dressings (20 participants), three compared alginate and hydrocolloid dressings (215 participants), and one compared alginate and plain non-adherent dressings (60 participants). Follow-up periods were six weeks in three RCTs and 12 weeks in two. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected for any comparison, for any healing outcome. Meta-analysis was feasible for one comparison (alginate and hydrocolloid dressings), with data from two RCTs (84 participants) pooled for complete healing at six weeks: risk ratio 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.21). Adverse event profiles were generally similar between groups (not assessed for alginate versus plain non-adherent dressings). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base does not suggest that alginate dressings are more or less effective in the healing of venous leg ulcers than hydrocolloid or plain non-adherent dressings, and there is no evidence to indicate a difference between different proprietary alginate dressings. However, the RCTs in this area are considered to be of low or unclear methodological quality. Further, good quality evidence is required from well designed and rigorously conducted RCTs that employ - and clearly report on - methods to minimise bias, prior to any definitive conclusions being made regarding the efficacy of alginate dressings in the management of venous leg ulcers.

Dressings for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use. OBJECTIVES: To summarize data from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trial evidence on the effectiveness of dressings for healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We searched the following databases for relevant systematic reviews and associated analyses: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 14 April 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 14 April 2015). We also handsearched the Cochrane Wounds Group list of reviews. Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Complete wound healing was the primary outcome assessed; secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, adverse events, resource use and dressing performance. MAIN RESULTS: We found 13 eligible systematic reviews relevant to this overview that contained a total of 17 relevant RCTs. One review reported the results of a network meta-analysis and so presented information on indirect, as well as direct, treatment effects. Collectively the reviews reported findings for 11 different comparisons supported by direct data and 26 comparisons supported by indirect data only. Only four comparisons informed by direct data found evidence of a difference in wound healing between dressing types, but the evidence was assessed as being of low or very low quality (in one case data could not be located and checked). There was also no robust evidence of a difference between dressing types for any secondary outcomes assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no robust evidence for differences between wound dressings for any outcome in foot ulcers in people with diabetes (treated in any setting). Practitioners may want to consider the unit cost of dressings, their management properties and patient preference when choosing dressings.

The external use of comfrey: a practitioner survey.

AIM: The survey aimed to assess how often and in what ways herbal practitioners use comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) externally in everyday practice. METHODS: A 2-sided A4 survey was sent to all UK members of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists, the College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy and the Association of Master Herbalists with viable practice addresses (n = 598). RESULTS: 239 herbalists responded, of whom 179 (75%) reported regularly using comfrey, in 15% of their consultations. It was most commonly prescribed as a cream for tendon, ligament and muscle problems, for fractures, and for wounds, the indications for which it was also perceived to be most effective. Comfrey was rated least effective for haemorrhoids, varicose veins and boils and was considered to carry the greatest risk when prescribed for ulcers, wounds and boils. CONCLUSION: Practitioner experience suggests that comfrey can be used safely and effectively externally for certain indications.

Topical and systemic antimicrobial therapy for venous leg ulcers.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is treatment with topical or systemic antimicrobial agents associated with better venous leg ulcer healing compared with usual care (dressings and bandages without antimicrobials) or an alternative topical or systemic antimicrobial agent? BOTTOM LINE: Available evidence, from underpowered pooled data, neither supports nor refutes an association of systemic antibiotic therapy with improved venous leg ulcer healing. Among topical antimicrobials, cadexomer iodine may be associated with better healing compared with usual care.

Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011.

BACKGROUND: Critical commentaries suggest that wound care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often poorly reported with many methodological flaws. Furthermore, interventions in chronic wounds, rather than being drugs, are often medical devices for which there are no requirements for RCTs to bring products to market. RCTs in wounds trials therefore potentially represent a form of marketing. This study presents a methodological overview of chronic wound trials published between 2004 and 2011 and investigates the influence of industry funding on methodological quality. METHODS: A systematic search for RCTs for the treatment of chronic wounds published in the English language between 2004 and 2011 (inclusive) in the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials was carried out.Data were extracted on aspects of trial design, conduct and quality including sample size, duration of follow-up, specification of a primary outcome, use of surrogate outcomes, and risks of bias. In addition, the prevalence of industry funding was assessed and its influence on the above aspects of trial design, conduct and quality was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 167 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. We found chronic wound trials often have short durations of follow-up (median 12 weeks), small sample sizes (median 63), fail to define a primary outcome in 41% of cases, and those that do define a primary outcome, use surrogate measures of healing in 40% of cases. Only 40% of trials used appropriate methods of randomisation, 25% concealed allocation and 34% blinded outcome assessors. Of the included trials, 41% were wholly or partially funded by industry, 33% declared non-commercial funding and 26% did not report a funding source. Industry funding was not statistically significantly associated with any measure of methodological quality, though this analysis was probably underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: This overview confirms concerns raised about the methodological quality of RCTs in wound care and illustrates that greater efforts must be made to follow international standards for conducting and reporting RCTs. There is currently minimal evidence of an influence of industry funding on methodological quality although analyses had limited power and funding source was not reported for a quarter of studies.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

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.

Hydrogel dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hydrogel wound dressings compared with alternative dressings or none 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 hydrogel with alternative wound dressings or no dressing 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 (446 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of three studies comparing hydrogel dressings with basic wound contract dressings found significantly greater healing with hydrogel: risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.56. The three pooled studies had different follow-up times (12 weeks, 16 weeks and 20 weeks) and also evaluated ulcers of different severities (grade 3 and 4; grade 2 and grade unspecified). One study compared a hydrogel dressing with larval therapy and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed and another found no statistically significant difference in healing between hydrogel and platelet-derived growth factor. There was also no statistically significant difference in number of healed ulcers between two different brands of hydrogel dressing. All included studies were small and at unclear risk of bias and there was some clinical heterogeneity with studies including different ulcer grades. No included studies compared hydrogel with other advanced wound dressings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that hydrogel dressings are more effective in healing (lower grade) diabetic foot ulcers than basic wound contact dressings however this finding is uncertain due to risk of bias in the original studies. There is currently no research evidence to suggest that hydrogel is more effective than larval therapy or platelet-derived growth factors in healing diabetic foot ulcers, nor that one brand of hydrogel is more effective than another in ulcer healing. No RCTs comparing hydrogel dressings with other advanced dressing types were found.

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use. OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to evaluate the effects of foam wound dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: For this first update 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 in April 2013. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects on ulcer healing of one or more foam wound dressings 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 six studies (157 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of two studies indicated that foam dressings do not promote the healing of diabetic foot ulcers compared with basic wound contact dressings (RR 2.03, 95%CI 0.91 to 4.55). Pooled data from two studies comparing foam and alginate dressing found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.44). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when foam dressings were compared with hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. All included studies were small and/or had limited follow-up times. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that foam wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however all trials in this field are very small. 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.

Foam dressings for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic or complex wound that are associated with considerable cost to patients and to healthcare providers. Primary wound contact dressings are usually applied beneath compression devices with the aim of aiding healing. Foam dressings are used frequently, and a variety of foam products is available on the market. The evidence base to guide dressing choice, however, is sparse.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of foam dressings on the healing of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2012 we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); the Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of any type of foam dressing in the treatment of venous ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was undertaken when deemed feasible and appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (1023 participants) reporting 14 comparisons were included in this review. There was no difference in healing outcomes between hydrocellular foam dressings and polyurethane foam dressings (three RCTs). Pooled data across five RCTs (418 participants) showed no statistically significant difference between foam dressings and hydrocolloid dressings in the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 to 16 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.22). No statistically significant between-group differences in healing outcomes were detected when foam dressings were compared with: paraffin gauze (two RCTs); hydrocapillary dressing (one RCT); knitted viscose dressing (one RCT); and protease modulating matrix (one RCT). No statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events were detected when hydrocellular foam dressings were compared with polyurethane foam dressings, or when foam dressings were compared with hydrocapillary, hydrocolloid, or knitted viscose dressings (one RCT for each comparison). Six RCTs were considered as being at overall high risk of bias, and the remaining six RCTs were considered to be at overall unclear risk of bias. No included RCT had an overall low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base does not suggest that foam dressings are more effective in the healing of venous leg ulcers than other wound dressing treatments. The evidence in this area is of low quality. Further evidence is required from well-designed and rigorously-conducted RCTs, that employ methods to minimise bias and report them clearly, before any definitive conclusions can be made regarding the efficacy of foam dressings in the management of venous leg ulcers.

Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of alginate wound dressings with no wound dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. 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 alginate dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing 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 six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. 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.

Alginate dressings for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic, complex wound associated with considerable cost to patients and healthcare providers. To aid healing, primary wound contact dressings are usually applied to ulcers beneath compression devices. Alginate dressings are used frequently and there is a variety of alginate products on the market, however, the evidence base to guide dressing choice is sparse. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative dressings, non-dressing treatments or no dressing, with or without concurrent compression therapy, on the healing of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 November 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11); The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to November Week 2 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations November 29, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 11); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 23 November 2012). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of any type of alginate dressing in the treatment of venous ulcers were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was undertaken when deemed feasible and appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs (295 participants) were included in this review. Overall risk of bias was high for two RCTs and unclear for three. One RCT compared different proprietary alginate dressings (20 participants), three compared alginate and hydrocolloid dressings (215 participants), and one compared alginate and plain non-adherent dressings (60 participants). Follow-up periods were six weeks in three RCTs and 12 weeks in two. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected for any comparison, for any healing outcome. Meta-analysis was feasible for one comparison (alginate and hydrocolloid dressings), with data from two RCTs (84 participants) pooled for complete healing at six weeks: risk ratio 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.21). Adverse event profiles were generally similar between groups (not assessed for alginate versus plain non-adherent dressings). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base does not suggest that alginate dressings are more or less effective in the healing of venous leg ulcers than hydrocolloid or plain non-adherent dressings, and there is no evidence to indicate a difference between different proprietary alginate dressings. However, the RCTs in this area are considered to be of low or unclear methodological quality. Further, good quality evidence is required from well designed and rigorously conducted RCTs that employ - and clearly report on - methods to minimise bias, prior to any definitive conclusions being made regarding the efficacy of alginate dressings in the management of venous leg ulcers.

Compression for venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Up to one percent of people in industrialised countries will suffer from a leg ulcer at some time. The majority of these leg ulcers are due to problems in the veins, resulting in an accumulation of blood in the legs. Leg ulcers arising from venous problems are called venous (or varicose or stasis) ulcers. The main treatment is the application of a firm compression garment (bandage or stocking) in order to aid venous return. There is a large number of compression garments available and it was unclear whether they are effective in treating venous ulcers and, if so, which method of compression is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects on venous ulcer healing of compression bandages and stockings.Specific questions addressed by the review are:1. Does the application of compression bandages or stockings aid venous ulcer healing? 2. Which compression bandage or stocking system is the most effective? SEARCH METHODS: For this second update we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (31 May 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 5, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 30 May 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 21); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 May 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs recruiting people with venous leg ulceration that evaluated any type of compression bandage system or compression stockings were eligible for inclusion. Eligible comparators included no compression (e.g. primary dressing alone, non-compressive bandage) or an alternative type of compression. RCTs had to report an objective measure of ulcer healing in order to be included (primary outcome for the review). SECONDARY OUTCOMES of the review included ulcer recurrence, costs, quality of life, pain, adverse events and withdrawals. There was no restriction on date, language or publication status of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Details of eligible studies were extracted and summarised using a data extraction table. Data extraction was performed by one review author and verified independently by a second review author. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-eight RCTs reporting 59 comparisons were included (4321 participants in total). Most RCTs were small, and most were at unclear or high risk of bias. Duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Risk ratio (RR) and other estimates are shown below where RCTs were pooled; otherwise findings refer to a single RCT.There was evidence from eight RCTs (unpooled) that healing outcomes (including time to healing) are better when patients receive compression compared with no compression.Single-component compression bandage systems are less effective than multi-component compression for complete healing at six months (one large RCT).A two-component system containing an elastic bandage healed more ulcers at one year than one without an elastic component (one small RCT).Three-component systems containing an elastic component healed more ulcers than those without elastic at three to four months (two RCTs pooled), RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.67), but another RCT showed no difference between groups at six months.An individual patient data meta-analysis of five RCTs suggested significantly faster healing with the four-layer bandage (4LB) than the short stretch bandage (SSB): median days to healing estimated at 90 and 99 respectively; hazard ratio 1.31 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.58).High-compression stockings are associated with better healing outcomes than SSB at two to four months: RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.10), estimate from four pooled RCTs.One RCT suggested better healing outcomes at 16 months with the addition of a tubular device plus single elastic bandage to a base system of gauze and crepe bandages when compared with two added elastic bandages. Another RCT had three arms; when one or two elastic bandages were added to a base three-component system that included an outer tubular layer, healing outcomes were better at six months for the two groups receiving elastic bandages.There is currently no evidence of a statistically significant difference for the following comparisons:⋅alternative single-component compression bandages (two RCTs, unpooled);⋅two-component bandages compared with the 4LB at three months (three RCTs pooled);⋅alternative versions of the 4LB for complete healing at times up to and including six months (three RCTs, unpooled);⋅4LB compared with paste bandage for complete healing at three months (two RCTs, pooled), six months or one year (one RCT for each time point);⋅adjustable compression boots compared with paste bandages for the outcome of change in ulcer area at three months (one small RCT);⋅adjustable compression boots compared with the 4LB with respect to complete healing at three months (one small RCT);⋅single-layer compression stocking compared with paste bandages for outcome of complete healing at four months (one small RCT) and 18 months (another small RCT);⋅low compression stocking compared with SSB for complete healing at three and six months (one small RCT);⋅compression stockings compared with a two-component bandage system and the 4LB for the outcome of complete healing at three months (one small, three-armed RCT); and,⋅tubular compression compared with SSB (one small RCT) for complete healing at three months. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 4LB was more cost-effective than SSB. It was not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding other secondary outcomes including recurrence, adverse events and health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compression increases ulcer healing rates compared with no compression. Multi-component systems are more effective than single-component systems. Multi-component systems containing an elastic bandage appear to be more effective than those composed mainly of inelastic constituents. Two-component bandage systems appear to perform as well as the 4LB. Patients receiving the 4LB heal faster than those allocated the SSB. More patients heal on high-compression stocking systems than with the SSB. Further data are required before the difference between high-compression stockings and the 4LB can be established.

A systematic review of the performance of instruments designed to measure the dimensions of pressure ulcers.

The objective was to undertake a systematic review of the performance of wound measurement instruments used for patients with pressure ulcers. Studies of any design, evaluating methods for estimating wound diameter, depth, surface area, or volume in patients with pressure ulcers were included. Eligible evaluations had to report intra- or inter-rater reliability, accuracy, agreement, or feasibility of methods. Electronic databases and other sources were accessed for study identification. Included studies were critically appraised using a modified checklist for diagnostic test evaluations. Twelve studies were included. Most had methodological problems and/or used inappropriate statistical methods. Reliable methods for measuring pressure ulcer surface area may include: grid tracings from photographs combined with whole plus partial square count; a portable digital pad; and stereophotogrammetry combined with computerized image analysis. The agreement between photographic tracing and direct transparency tracing may be satisfactory (both methods being combined with computerized planimetry). No definitive conclusions could be reached about studies of diameter or depth; this means that there is little evidence to underpin recommendations in clinical guidelines. Evaluations of volume measurement were of poor quality, and there were few data on feasibility. Further primary research is needed to evaluate methods of wound measurement used in clinical practice.