Bacteria and bioburden and healing in complex wounds: A prognostic systematic review.

The wound microbiome may play an important role in the wound healing process. We conducted the first systematic prognosis review investigating whether aspects of the wound microbiome are independent prognostic factors for the healing of complex wounds. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library to February 2019. We included longitudinal studies which assessed the independent association of aspects of wound microbiome with healing of complex wounds while controlling for confounding factors. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We synthesised studies narratively due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies and sparse data. We identified 28 cohorts from 21 studies with a total of 38,604 participants, including people with diabetes and foot ulcers, open surgical wounds, venous leg ulcers and pressure ulcers. Risk of bias varied from low (2 cohorts) to high (17 cohorts); the great majority of participants were in cohorts at high risk of bias. Most evidence related to the association of baseline clinical wound infection with healing. Clinical infection at baseline may be associated with less likelihood of wound healing in foot ulcers in diabetes (HR from cohort with moderate risk of bias 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.83) or slower healing in open surgical wounds (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83); evidence in other wounds is more limited. Most other associations assessed showed no clear relationship with wound healing; evidence was limited and often sparse; and we documented gaps in the evidence. There is low certainty evidence that a diagnosis of wound infection may be prognostic of poorer healing in foot ulcers in diabetes, and some moderate certainty evidence for this in open surgical wounds. Low certainty evidence means that more research could change these findings.

Protease activity as a prognostic factor for wound healing in complex wounds.

Healing mechanisms are disrupted in complex wounds. Proteases may persist longer in nonhealing wounds. We sought to investigate whether protease activity, protease inhibitor activity, or their combinations are independent prognostic factors for healing of complex wounds. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library to March 2019. Study selection comprised longitudinal studies assessing the independent effect of proteases, their inhibitors or ratios of the two, on healing of complex wounds, while controlling for confounding factors. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses separately for proteases, inhibitors, and ratios. We graded the evidence certainty (quality). We identified eight eligible studies in 10 cohorts involving 343 participants. Risk of bias was moderate or high. Elevated protease activity may be associated with less wound healing (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.41, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.11; nine cohorts); and elevated protease inhibitor activity with more healing (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06-0.68; five cohorts), this is low certainty evidence. Increased protease: inhibitor ratios may be associated with less healing (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01; four cohorts), but this evidence is of very low certainty. Heterogeneity in protease activity was unexplained by prespecified subgroup analyses for wound type or protease activity status, but partially explained by protease class. Posthoc analysis suggested elevated levels of a particular protease, MMP-1, may be associated with more healing and other proteases with less healing. This is low/very low certainty evidence. Limitations were small included studies at moderate or high risk of bias, and the use of posthoc analyses. Elevated protease activity and protease: inhibitor ratios may be associated with less healing, and elevated inhibitor levels with more healing. There may be important differences between MMP-1 and other proteases. High quality research is needed to explore these new findings further.

Memantine for dementia.

BACKGROUND: Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales. MAIN RESULTS: Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.

Protease activity as a prognostic factor for wound healing in venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a common type of complex wound that have a negative impact on people's lives and incur high costs for health services and society. It has been suggested that prolonged high levels of protease activity in the later stages of the healing of chronic wounds may be associated with delayed healing. Protease modulating treatments have been developed which seek to modulate protease activity and thereby promote healing in chronic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether protease activity is an independent prognostic factor for the healing of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2018, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies with any follow-up period that recruited people with VLUs and investigated whether protease activity in wound fluid was associated with future healing of VLUs. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed as cohort studies, provided interventions were taken into account in the analysis, and case-control studies if there were no available cohort studies. We also included prediction model studies provided they reported separately associations of individual prognostic factors (protease activity) with healing. Studies of any type of protease or combination of proteases were eligible, including proteases from bacteria, and the prognostic factor could be examined as a continuous or categorical variable; any cut-off point was permitted. The primary outcomes were time to healing (survival analysis) and the proportion of people with ulcers completely healed; the secondary outcome was change in ulcer size/rate of wound closure. We extracted unadjusted (simple) and adjusted (multivariable) associations between the prognostic factor and healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We collected association statistics where available. No study reported adjusted analyses: instead we collected unadjusted results or calculated association measures from raw data. We calculated risk ratios when both outcome and prognostic factor were dichotomous variables. When the prognostic factor was reported as continuous data and healing outcomes were dichotomous, we either performed regression analysis or analysed the impact of healing on protease levels, analysing as the standardised mean difference. When both prognostic factor and outcome were continuous data, we reported correlation coefficients or calculated them from individual participant data.We displayed all results on forest plots to give an overall visual representation. We planned to conduct meta-analyses where this was appropriate, otherwise we summarised narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies comprising 21 cohorts involving 646 participants. Only 11 studies (13 cohorts, 522 participants) had data available for analysis. Of these, five were prospective cohort studies, four were RCTs and two had a type of case-control design. Follow-up time ranged from four to 36 weeks. Studies covered 10 different matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) and two serine proteases (human neutrophil elastase and urokinase-type plasminogen activators). Two studies recorded complete healing as an outcome; other studies recorded partial healing measures. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies; for example, in the definition of healing, the type of protease and its measurement, the distribution of active and bound protease species, the types of treatment and the reporting of results. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. No study had conducted multivariable analyses and all included evidence was of very low certainty because of the lack of adjustment for confounders, the high risk of bias for all studies except one, imprecision around the measures of association and inconsistency in the direction of association. Collectively the research indicated complete uncertainty as to the association between protease activity and VLU healing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified very low validity evidence regarding any association between protease activity and VLU healing and there is complete uncertainty regarding the relationship. The review offers information for both future research and systematic review methodology.

Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg which can be slow to heal, and are both painful and costly. The point prevalence of open venous leg ulcers in the UK is about 3 cases per 10,000 people, and many people experience recurrent episodes of prolonged ulceration. First-line treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, but a wide range of dressings and topical treatments are also used. This diversity of treatments makes evidence-based decision-making challenging, and a clear and current overview of all the evidence is required. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of (1) dressings and (2) topical agents for healing venous leg ulcers in any care setting and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We updated this search in March 2018; as a result several studies are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults with venous leg ulcers and compared the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open venous leg ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factors and other biological agents, larval therapy and treatments such as laser, heat or ultrasound. Studies were required to report complete wound healing to be eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We conducted this NMA using frequentist meta-regression methods for the efficacy outcome; the probability of complete healing. We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual treatments focusing on comparisons with widely used dressing classes, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole. MAIN RESULTS: We included 78 RCTs (7014 participants) in this review. Of these, 59 studies (5156 participants, 25 different interventions) were included in the NMA; resulting in 40 direct contrasts which informed 300 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the network as a whole was of low certainty. This judgement was based on the sparsity of the network leading to imprecision and the general high risk of bias in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated instability in key aspects of the network and results are reported for the extended sensitivity analysis. Evidence for individual contrasts was mainly judged to be low or very low certainty.The uncertainty was perpetuated when the results were considered by ranking the treatments in terms of the probability that they were the most effective for ulcer healing, with many treatments having similar, low, probabilities of being the best treatment. The two most highly-ranked treatments both had more than 50% probability of being the best (sucralfate and silver dressings). However, the data for sucralfate was from one small study, which means that this finding should be interpreted with caution. When exploring the data for silver and sucralfate compared with widely-used dressing classes, there was some evidence that silver dressings may increase the probability of venous leg ulcer healing, compared with nonadherent dressings: RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.74 (moderate-certainty evidence in the context of a low-certainty network). For all other combinations of these five interventions it was unclear whether the intervention increased the probability of healing; in each case this was low- or very low-certainty evidence as a consequence of one or more of imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, largely because of the low certainty of the whole network and of individual comparisons.The results of this NMA focus exclusively on complete healing; whilst this is of key importance to people living with venous leg ulcers, clinicians may wish to take into account other patient-important outcomes and factors such as patient preference and cost.

Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these SSIs can be considerable in financial and social terms. Many interventions are used with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI in people undergoing surgery. These interventions can be broadly delivered at three stages: preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The intraoperative interventions are largely focused on decontamination of skin using soap and antiseptics; the use of barriers to prevent movement of micro-organisms into incisions; and optimising the patient's own bodily functions to promote best recovery. Both decontamination and barrier methods can be aimed at people undergoing surgery and operating staff. Other interventions focused on SSI prevention may be aimed at the surgical environment and include methods of theatre cleansing and approaches to managing theatre traffic. OBJECTIVES: To present an overview of Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of interventions, delivered during the intraoperative period, aimed at preventing SSIs in all populations undergoing surgery in an operating theatre. METHODS: Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness of interventions delivered during the intraoperative period in terms of SSI prevention were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane protocols and title registrations for future inclusion into the overview. We searched the Cochrane Library on 01 July 2017. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and certainty assessment. We used the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 Cochrane Reviews in this overview: we judged 30 reviews as being at low risk of bias and two at unclear risk of bias. Thirteen reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Two reviews had no relevant data to extract. We extracted data from 30 reviews with 349 included trials, totaling 73,053 participants. Interventions assessed included gloving, use of disposable face masks, patient oxygenation protocols, use of skin antiseptics for hand washing and patient skin preparation, vaginal preparation, microbial sealants, methods of surgical incision, antibiotic prophylaxis and methods of skin closure. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence for outcomes was low or very low. Of the 77 comparisons providing evidence for the outcome of SSI, seven provided high- or moderate-certainty evidence, 39 provided low-certainty evidence and 31 very low-certainty evidence. Of the nine comparisons that provided evidence for the outcome of mortality, five provided low-certainty evidence and four very low-certainty evidence.There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence for the following outcomes for these intraoperative interventions. (1) Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision reduce SSI risk compared with administration after cord clamping (10 trials, 5041 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.81; high-certainty evidence - assessed by review authors). (2) Preoperative antibiotics reduce SSI risk compared with placebo after breast cancer surgery (6 trials, 1708 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence - assessed by overview authors). (3) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduce SSI risk in caesarean sections compared with no antibiotics (82 relevant trials, 14,407 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by review authors). (4) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces SSI risk for hernia repair compared with placebo or no treatment (17 trials, 7843 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by overview authors); (5) There is currently no clear difference in the risk of SSI between iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes compared with no adhesive drapes (2 trials, 1113 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.60; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by review authors); (6) There is currently no clear difference in SSI risk between short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotics in colorectal surgery (7 trials; 1484 participants; RR 1.05 95% CI 0.78 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by overview authors). There was only one comparison showing negative effects associated with the intervention: adhesive drapes increase the risk of SSI compared with no drapes (5 trials; 3082 participants; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; high-certainty evidence - rated by review authors). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on use of intraoperative treatments for the prevention of SSIs from all currently published Cochrane Reviews. There is evidence that some interventions are useful in reducing SSI risk for people undergoing surgery, such as antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section and hernia repair, and also the timing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision. Also, there is evidence that adhesive drapes increase SSI risk. Evidence for the many other treatment choices is largely of low or very low certainty and no quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness data were reported. Future trials should elucidate the relative effects of some treatments. These studies should focus on increasing participant numbers, using robust methodology and being of sufficient duration to adequately assess SSI. Assessment of other outcomes such as mortality might also be investigated as part of non-experimental prospective follow-up of people with SSI of different severity, so the risk of death for different subgroups can be better understood.

Antiseptics for burns.

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

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

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

Protease-modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are open skin wounds on the lower leg that occur because of poor blood flow in the veins of the leg; leg ulcers can last from weeks to years, and are both painful and costly. Prevalence in the UK is about 2.9 cases per 10,000 people. First-line treatment for VLUs is compression therapy, but around 60% of people have unhealed ulcers after 12 weeks' treatment and about 40% after 24 weeks; therefore, there is scope for further improvement. Limited evidence suggests non-healing leg ulcers may have persisting elevated levels of proteases, which is thought to deter the later stages of healing; thus, timely protease-modulating matrix (PMM) treatments may improve healing by physically removing proteases from the wound fluid. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of protease-modulating matrix (PMM) treatments on the healing of venous leg ulcers, in people managed in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses 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 searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PMM treatments for VLUs. We defined PMM treatments as those with a purposeful intent of reducing proteases. Wound healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies (784 participants) in this review; sample sizes ranged from 10 to 187 participants (median 56.5). One study had three arms that were all relevant to this review and all the other studies had two arms. One study was a within-participant comparison. All studies were industry funded. Two studies provided unpublished data for healing.Nine of the included studies compared PMM treatments with other treatments and reported results for the primary outcomes. All treatments were dressings. All studies also gave the participants compression bandaging. Seven of these studies were in participants described as having 'non-responsive' or 'hard-to-heal' ulcers. Results, reported at short, medium and long durations and as time-to-event data, are summarised for the comparison of any dressing regimen incorporating PMM versus any other dressing regimen. The majority of the evidence was of low or very low certainty, and was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.It is uncertain whether PMM dressing regimens heal VLUs quicker than non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 1 trial with 100 participants) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.97).In the short term (four to eight weeks) it is unclear whether there is a difference between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens in the probability of healing (very low-certainty evidence, 2 trials involving 207 participants).In the medium term (12 weeks), it is unclear whether PMM dressing regimens increase the probability of healing compared with non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 4 trials with 192 participants) (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.71). Over the longer term (6 months), it is also unclear whether there is a difference between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens in the probability of healing (low certainty evidence, 1 trial, 100 participants) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.41).It is uncertain whether there is a difference in adverse events between PMM dressing regimens and non-PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence from 5 trials, 363 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42). It is also unclear whether resource use is lower for PMM dressing regimens (low-certainty evidence, 1 trial involving 73 participants), or whether mean total costs in a German healthcare setting are different (low-certainty evidence, 1 trial in 187 participants). One cost-effectiveness analysis was not included because effectiveness was not based on complete healing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is generally of low certainty, particularly because of risk of bias and imprecision of effects. Within these limitations, we are unclear whether PMM dressing regimens influence venous ulcer healing relative to dressing regimens without PMM activity. It is also unclear whether there is a difference in rates of adverse events between PMM and non-PMM treatments. It is uncertain whether either resource use (products and staff time) or total costs associated with PMM dressing regimens are different from those for non-PMM dressing regimens. More research is needed to clarify the impact of PMM treatments on venous ulcer healing.

A 'test and treat' strategy for elevated wound protease activity for healing in venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of complex wound. They can be painful, malodorous, prone to infection and slow to heal. Standard treatment includes compression therapy and a dressing. The use of protease-modulating treatments for venous leg ulcers is increasing. These treatments are based on some evidence that a proportion of slow to heal ulcers have elevated protease activity in the wound. Point-of-care tests which aim to detect elevated protease activity are now available. A 'test and treat' strategy involves testing for elevated proteases and then using protease-modulating treatments in ulcers which show elevated protease levels. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on venous leg ulcer healing of a 'test and treat' strategy involving detection of high levels of wound protease activity and treatment with protease-modulating therapies, compared with alternative treatment strategies such as using the same treatment for all participants or using a different method of treatment selection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) Issue 12, 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations January 2016); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to January 2016); EBSCO CINAHL (1937 to January 2016). We also searched three clinical trials registers, reference lists and the websites of regulatory agencies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished RCTs which assessed a test and treat strategy for elevated protease activity in venous leg ulcers in adults compared with an alternative treatment strategy. The test and treat strategy needed to be the only systematic difference between the groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection; we planned that two authors would also assess risk of bias and extract data. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies which met the inclusion criteria for this review. We identified one ongoing study; it was unclear whether this would be eligible for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no randomised evidence on the impact of a test and treat policy for protease levels on outcomes in people with venous leg ulcers.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds.

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