Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Luis Lazaro-Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A. Lavery, Matthew Malone
{"title":"Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: A systematic review","authors":"Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Luis Lazaro-Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A. Lavery, Matthew Malone","doi":"10.1111/iwj.70053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case–control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":14451,"journal":{"name":"International Wound Journal","volume":"21 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11449527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Wound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iwj.70053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case–control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.
期刊介绍:
The Editors welcome papers on all aspects of prevention and treatment of wounds and associated conditions in the fields of surgery, dermatology, oncology, nursing, radiotherapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy and podiatry. The Journal accepts papers in the following categories:
- Research papers
- Review articles
- Clinical studies
- Letters
- News and Views: international perspectives, education initiatives, guidelines and different activities of groups and societies.
Calendar of events
The Editors are supported by a board of international experts and a panel of reviewers across a range of disciplines and specialties which ensures only the most current and relevant research is published.