Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Lia van Rijswijk, Janice M Beitz
{"title":"Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review.","authors":"Lia van Rijswijk, Janice M Beitz","doi":"10.1097/WON.0000000000001154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this project was to update the underlying evidence base for basic wound care in the Solutions Wound Care Algorithms and revise this resource as needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 14 major algorithm goals, guidelines, and outcomes of patient care and 34 detailed qualifying assessment and management statements/steps were reconstructed to encompass 21 qualifying statements/steps and aligned with their most recent (2013) levels of evidence. Next, a systematic, focused review of the literature was conducted to update the evidence levels using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>An English language search of CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) electronic databases was conducted for the years 2015-2023. For each wound type, the following search terms were used: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, clinical practice guideline, clinical trial, and wound care/healing and dressings. Publications not focused on the patient population or qualifying statements were excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The search retrieved 59 elements that met the predetermined criteria for analysis and leveling. All qualifying statements and steps remain evidence-based. Higher quality evidence became available for nutritional status assessment, exercise to reduce risk factors for various types of lower extremity ulcers, using tap water to cleanse wounds; that delayed wound healing may be a sign of infection, and that silver-containing dressings are effective when used appropriately. No basic patient and wound care steps have the highest level of evidence (level 1) and strength of recommendation (A).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to previous updates, we found fewer clinical trials indicating a need for research to improve evidence levels for various steps of basic wound assessment and care processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","volume":"52 2","pages":"104-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to update the underlying evidence base for basic wound care in the Solutions Wound Care Algorithms and revise this resource as needed.

Methods: The 14 major algorithm goals, guidelines, and outcomes of patient care and 34 detailed qualifying assessment and management statements/steps were reconstructed to encompass 21 qualifying statements/steps and aligned with their most recent (2013) levels of evidence. Next, a systematic, focused review of the literature was conducted to update the evidence levels using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.

Search strategy: An English language search of CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) electronic databases was conducted for the years 2015-2023. For each wound type, the following search terms were used: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, clinical practice guideline, clinical trial, and wound care/healing and dressings. Publications not focused on the patient population or qualifying statements were excluded.

Findings: The search retrieved 59 elements that met the predetermined criteria for analysis and leveling. All qualifying statements and steps remain evidence-based. Higher quality evidence became available for nutritional status assessment, exercise to reduce risk factors for various types of lower extremity ulcers, using tap water to cleanse wounds; that delayed wound healing may be a sign of infection, and that silver-containing dressings are effective when used appropriately. No basic patient and wound care steps have the highest level of evidence (level 1) and strength of recommendation (A).

Conclusion: Compared to previous updates, we found fewer clinical trials indicating a need for research to improve evidence levels for various steps of basic wound assessment and care processes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
34.60%
发文量
186
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing (JWOCN), the official journal of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®), is the premier publication for wound, ostomy and continence practice and research. The Journal’s mission is to publish current best evidence and original research to guide the delivery of expert health care. The WOCN Society is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical and research opportunities to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies and continence care needs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信