FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4289933293> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4289933293 abstract "Background Venous leg ulcers are a chronic health problem that cause considerable economic impact and affect quality of life for those who have them. Primary wound contact dressings are usually applied to ulcers beneath compression therapy to aid healing, promote comfort and control exudate. There are numerous dressing products available for venous leg ulcers and hydrogel is often prescribed for this condition; however, the evidence base to guide dressing choice is sparse. Objectives To assess the effects of hydrogel wound dressings on the healing of venous leg ulcers in any care setting. Search methods In May 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta‐analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), either published or unpublished, that compared the effects of hydrogel dressing with other dressings on the healing of venous leg ulcers. We excluded trials evaluating hydrogel dressings impregnated with antimicrobial, antiseptic or analgesic agents as these interventions are evaluated in other Cochrane Reviews. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included four RCTs (10 articles) in a qualitative analysis. Overall, 272 participants were randomised, in sample sizes ranging from 20 to 156 participants. The mean age of the included population in the trials ranged from 55 to 68 years, 37% were women based on studies that reported the sex of participants. The studies compared hydrogel dressings with the following: gauze and saline, alginate dressing, manuka honey and hydrocolloid. Two studies were multicentre and the others were single‐centre trials. Length of treatment using hydrogel dressing was four weeks in three studies and two weeks in one study. The follow‐up period was the same as the duration of treatment in three studies and in one study the follow‐up for wound healing was at 12 weeks after four weeks of treatment. Overall risk of bias was high for all trials because at least one of the three key criteria (selection bias, detection bias and attrition bias) was at high risk. Hydrogel compared with gauze and saline It is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing (risk ratio (RR) 5.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 16.42; 1 trial, 60 participants) or change in ulcer size (mean difference (MD) –1.50, 95% CI –1.86 to –1.14; 1 trial, 60 participants) between interventions because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Data reported from one trial were incomplete for time‐to‐ulcer healing. Hydrogel compared with alginate dressing It is uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size between hydrogel and alginate gel because the certainty of the evidence is very low (MD –41.80, 95% CI –63.95 to –19.65; 1 trial, 20 participants). Hydrogel compared with manuka honey It is uncertain whether there is a difference in complete wound healing (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; 1 trial, 108 participants) or incidence of wound infection (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.94; 1 trial, 108 participants) between interventions because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Hydrogel compared with hydrocolloid One study (84 participants) reported on change in ulcer size between hydrogel and hydrocolloid; however, further analysis was not possible because authors did not report standard errors or any other measurement of variance of a set of data from the means. Therefore, it is also uncertain whether there is a difference in change in ulcer size between hydrogel and hydrocolloid because the certainty of the evidence is very low. No studies provided evidence for the outcomes: recurrence of ulcer, health‐related quality of life, pain and costs. Overall, independent of the comparison, the certainty of evidence is very low and downgraded twice due to risk of bias and once or twice due to imprecision for all comparisons and outcomes. Authors' conclusions There is inconclusive evidence to determine the effectiveness of hydrogel dressings compared with gauze and saline, alginate dressing, manuka honey or hydrocolloid on venous leg ulcer healing. Practitioners may, therefore, consider other characteristics such as costs and symptom management when choosing between dressings. Any future studies assessing the effects of hydrogel on venous wound healing should consider using all the steps from CONSORT, and consider key points such as appropriate sample size with the power to detect expected differences, appropriate outcomes (such as time‐to‐event analysis) and adverse effects. If time‐to‐event analysis is not used, at least a longer follow‐up (e.g. 12 weeks and above) should be adopted. Future studies should also address important outcomes that the studies we included did not investigate, such as health‐related quality of life, pain and wound recurrence." @default.
• W4289933293 created "2022-08-06" @default.
• W4289933293 creator A5021336901 @default.
• W4289933293 creator A5045894190 @default.
• W4289933293 creator A5084491805 @default.
• W4289933293 date "2022-08-05" @default.
• W4289933293 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W4289933293 title "Hydrogel dressings for venous leg ulcers" @default.
• W4289933293 cites W143062720 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1485340339 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1496722696 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1877853587 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1948963940 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1964470318 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1965854733 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1970022012 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1981288839 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1981680557 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W1989404363 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2004450821 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2004784221 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2012582298 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2036484524 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2047349319 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2047996987 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2049103906 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2060868853 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2064248255 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2071332395 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2073221300 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2092141594 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2095285796 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2109670353 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2134833483 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2138996212 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2142081066 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2154969262 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2159579807 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2165865036 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2291236127 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2316597028 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2391055738 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W24300804 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2593559227 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2605537360 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2767089538 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2899583485 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2913993799 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2967085079 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2969480000 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W2978795816 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4211137828 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4211161235 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4234989290 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4244024780 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4254900528 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4289933293 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4297655430 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W4302813683 @default.
• W4289933293 cites W90284254 @default.
• W4289933293 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010738.pub2" @default.
• W4289933293 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35930364" @default.
• W4289933293 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4289933293 type Work @default.
• W4289933293 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W4289933293 countsByYear W42899332932015 @default.
• W4289933293 countsByYear W42899332932018 @default.
• W4289933293 countsByYear W42899332932020 @default.
• W4289933293 countsByYear W42899332932022 @default.
• W4289933293 countsByYear W42899332932023 @default.
• W4289933293 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4289933293 hasAuthorship W4289933293A5021336901 @default.
• W4289933293 hasAuthorship W4289933293A5045894190 @default.
• W4289933293 hasAuthorship W4289933293A5084491805 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C2780952370 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C2781145037 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C2993807428 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C126322002 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C141071460 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C159110408 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C168563851 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C17744445 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C177713679 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C1862650 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C199539241 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C27415008 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C2779473830 @default.
• W4289933293 hasConceptScore W4289933293C2780952370 @default.

• next