Efficacy of recombinant human epidermal growth factor in pressure injury healing: evidence from Chinese randomized controlled trials.

IF 1 4区医学 Q4 DERMATOLOGY

Wound management & prevention Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.25270/wmp.22092

Meng-Wei Ge, Fei-Hong Hu, Yi-Jie Jia, Wen Tang, Wan-Qing Zhang, Hong-Lin Chen

{"title":"Efficacy of recombinant human epidermal growth factor in pressure injury healing: evidence from Chinese randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Meng-Wei Ge, Fei-Hong Hu, Yi-Jie Jia, Wen Tang, Wan-Qing Zhang, Hong-Lin Chen","doi":"10.25270/wmp.22092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) in healing pressure injuries (PIs).Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving rhEGF in the treatment of PIs that were identified in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design (PICOS) strategy was applied to determine analysis eligibility. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used, and statistical analysis, including sensitivity analysis, was performed of 3 outcomes indicators: the primary outcome was total efficacy of rhEGF in treating PIs, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of complete healing and the time to complete healing. Total efficacy refers to the proportion of cases that have been cured, obviously effective, or effective. Complete healing refers to cases where the wound has healed, scabbed, and the scab has sloughed off.Results: Sixteen RCTs were included, comprising a total of 1,206 patients. Study and control group size varied by outcomes. The total effective healing rate in rhEGF group was 97.18%, which was significantly higher than 83.38% in control group (OR: 5.69, [95% CI: 3.61, 8.97], z=7.49, P < .001). The proportion of complete healing in the rhEGF group was 73.30%, which was higher than 39.52% in control group (OR: 3.88, [95% CI: 3.01, 5.01], z=10.39, P < .001). Furthermore, the healing time using rhEGF was shorter (SMD: -2.14 days, [95% CI: -2.60, -1.67], z=9.07, P < .001). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust.Conclusions: The meta-analysis indicated that rhEGF was effective in healing PIs with few negative effects. Further research beyond Chinese populations involving larger studies and studies that distinguish between results found in using rhEGF alone or in combination are recommended.","PeriodicalId":23741,"journal":{"name":"Wound management & prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound management & prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/wmp.22092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) in healing pressure injuries (PIs).

Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving rhEGF in the treatment of PIs that were identified in PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design (PICOS) strategy was applied to determine analysis eligibility. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used, and statistical analysis, including sensitivity analysis, was performed of 3 outcomes indicators: the primary outcome was total efficacy of rhEGF in treating PIs, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of complete healing and the time to complete healing. Total efficacy refers to the proportion of cases that have been cured, obviously effective, or effective. Complete healing refers to cases where the wound has healed, scabbed, and the scab has sloughed off.

Results: Sixteen RCTs were included, comprising a total of 1,206 patients. Study and control group size varied by outcomes. The total effective healing rate in rhEGF group was 97.18%, which was significantly higher than 83.38% in control group (OR: 5.69, [95% CI: 3.61, 8.97], z=7.49, P < .001). The proportion of complete healing in the rhEGF group was 73.30%, which was higher than 39.52% in control group (OR: 3.88, [95% CI: 3.01, 5.01], z=10.39, P < .001). Furthermore, the healing time using rhEGF was shorter (SMD: -2.14 days, [95% CI: -2.60, -1.67], z=9.07, P < .001). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis indicated that rhEGF was effective in healing PIs with few negative effects. Further research beyond Chinese populations involving larger studies and studies that distinguish between results found in using rhEGF alone or in combination are recommended.

查看原文本刊更多论文

重组人表皮生长因子对压力损伤愈合的疗效：来自中国随机对照试验的证据。

目的评估重组人表皮生长因子（rhEGF）治疗压力性损伤（PIs）的疗效：方法：对在 PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和中国国家知识基础设施（CNKI）中找到的涉及 rhEGF 治疗压力性损伤的随机对照试验（RCT）进行了荟萃分析。采用人群、干预、比较、结果、研究设计（PICOS）策略确定分析资格。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具，对3项结果指标进行了统计分析（包括敏感性分析）：主要结果为rhEGF治疗PIs的总疗效，次要结果为完全愈合比例和完全愈合时间。总疗效指治愈、明显有效或有效的病例比例。完全愈合是指伤口愈合、结痂、痂皮脱落：结果：共纳入 16 项研究性临床试验，包括 1,206 名患者。研究组和对照组的规模因结果而异。rhEGF 组的总有效愈合率为 97.18%，显著高于对照组的 83.38%（OR：5.69，[95% CI：3.61，8.97]，z=7.49，P <.001）。rhEGF 组完全愈合的比例为 73.30%，高于对照组的 39.52%（OR：3.88，[95% CI：3.01，5.01]，z=10.39，P < .001）。此外，使用 rhEGF 的愈合时间更短（SMD：-2.14 天，[95% CI：-2.60，-1.67]，z=9.07，P < .001）。敏感性分析表明结果是稳健的：荟萃分析表明，rhEGF 能有效治疗 PIs，且几乎没有负面影响。建议在中国人群以外开展更大规模的研究，并对单独或联合使用 rhEGF 的结果进行区分。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Wound management & prevention Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Information not localized