Skin cleansers and leave-on product interventions for preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Tanya Graham, Dimitri Beeckman, Jan Kottner, Mandy Fader, Francesca Fiorentino, Joanne M Fitzpatrick, Mikel Gray, Ruth G Harris, Sangeeta Sooriah, Sheila A Wallace, Peter R Worsley, Sue Woodward
{"title":"Skin cleansers and leave-on product interventions for preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.","authors":"Tanya Graham, Dimitri Beeckman, Jan Kottner, Mandy Fader, Francesca Fiorentino, Joanne M Fitzpatrick, Mikel Gray, Ruth G Harris, Sangeeta Sooriah, Sheila A Wallace, Peter R Worsley, Sue Woodward","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a common skin problem in adults with urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence, or both. Prevention involves skin care interventions such as skin cleansing and the application of skin protectants/barriers (leave-on products).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of skin care cleansers, leave-on products, and procedures for preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>On 29 April 2024, we searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register - which includes searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP - and hand-searched journals and conference proceedings. We searched reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs conducted in any healthcare setting and involving participants aged over 18 years without IAD at baseline. We included trials comparing the effectiveness of skin cleansing interventions and leave-on products or combinations of interventions/leave-on products.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Three review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Four review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data from studies not published in English were translated and extracted by volunteers from Cochrane Engage and the review authors' networks. Primary outcomes were: number of participants with IAD and adverse effects related to the intervention (pain, skin rash, itching, and other serious adverse effects). Secondary outcomes were: number of participants satisfied with skin care products or procedures, adherence to the protocol throughout the intervention, and quality of life (condition-specific or generic). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 15 trials with 1020 participants in a qualitative synthesis (41 participants from nursing homes; 65 from both care homes and hospital, and 914 from hospital settings). Participants had urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence, or both. Thirteen trials had small sample sizes and two trials had 180 and 174 participants. Six trials assessed outcomes in the short term (≤ 7 days), four in the medium term (8 days-1 month), and one in the long term (> 1 month-3 months). In the remaining studies, the timing of assessment was unclear. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. Substantial heterogeneity (in study populations, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools) precluded meta-analysis. Three trials compared skin cleansing interventions, and five trials compared leave-on products or a combination of leave-on products. Seven trials compared a combination of skin cleansers and leave-on products. Number of participants with incontinence-associated dermatitis Three trials compared a skin cleanser with soap and water. One provided evidence that using a foam cleanser might be more effective than soap and water for preventing IAD (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence), while another found little or no difference in effectiveness between a disposable washcloth containing 3% dimethicone and soap and water (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; 12 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The third trial reported lower erythema scores with a no-rinse skin cleanser compared with soap and water, but we were unable to analyse these data. In trials evaluating combinations of skin cleansers and leave-on products versus skin cleansing alone, one suggested the combined treatment may be more effective for preventing IAD (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 180 participants; very low certainty of evidence), and the other showed little to no difference between interventions (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.68; 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies showed little to no difference between a combination of leave-on products versus a single product (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.02; 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence); (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.86; 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In general, we cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of the tested interventions in preventing IAD because of the very low certainty of the evidence for all comparisons.</p><p><strong>Adverse effects: </strong>pain One trial found that fewer people using a combination of skin cleansing and a leave-on product experienced pain compared with those receiving cleansing without a leave-on product (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.19; 180 participants; low-certainty evidence), and one trial found that fewer people using a no-rinse skin cleanser plus a skin cream developed pain compared with those using soap and water followed by a lotion (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.74; 31 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, our analyses of these two comparisons suggest there may be little to no difference between the tested interventions in terms of associated pain.</p><p><strong>Adverse effects: </strong>itching One trial found that skin cleansing and a leave-on product may be less frequently associated with itching compared with a conventional skin care regimen with no leave-on product (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29; 180 participants; low-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>We found limited evidence, of low and very low certainty, on the effectiveness of interventions for preventing IAD in adults. Consequently, it is unclear whether any skin cleanser or leave-on product, used alone or in combination, performs better than any other. There is some very uncertain evidence that using a skin cleanser may be better at preventing IAD than soap and water, and that using a combination of a skin cleanser with a leave-on product may be better at preventing IAD than using a skin cleanser alone. There is a need for high-quality confirmatory trials using standardised, comparable prevention regimens in different settings/regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"7 ","pages":"CD011627"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12247456/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a common skin problem in adults with urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence, or both. Prevention involves skin care interventions such as skin cleansing and the application of skin protectants/barriers (leave-on products).

Objectives: To assess the effects of skin care cleansers, leave-on products, and procedures for preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.

Search methods: On 29 April 2024, we searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register - which includes searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP - and hand-searched journals and conference proceedings. We searched reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.

Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs conducted in any healthcare setting and involving participants aged over 18 years without IAD at baseline. We included trials comparing the effectiveness of skin cleansing interventions and leave-on products or combinations of interventions/leave-on products.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Four review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data from studies not published in English were translated and extracted by volunteers from Cochrane Engage and the review authors' networks. Primary outcomes were: number of participants with IAD and adverse effects related to the intervention (pain, skin rash, itching, and other serious adverse effects). Secondary outcomes were: number of participants satisfied with skin care products or procedures, adherence to the protocol throughout the intervention, and quality of life (condition-specific or generic). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main results: We included 15 trials with 1020 participants in a qualitative synthesis (41 participants from nursing homes; 65 from both care homes and hospital, and 914 from hospital settings). Participants had urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence, or both. Thirteen trials had small sample sizes and two trials had 180 and 174 participants. Six trials assessed outcomes in the short term (≤ 7 days), four in the medium term (8 days-1 month), and one in the long term (> 1 month-3 months). In the remaining studies, the timing of assessment was unclear. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. Substantial heterogeneity (in study populations, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools) precluded meta-analysis. Three trials compared skin cleansing interventions, and five trials compared leave-on products or a combination of leave-on products. Seven trials compared a combination of skin cleansers and leave-on products. Number of participants with incontinence-associated dermatitis Three trials compared a skin cleanser with soap and water. One provided evidence that using a foam cleanser might be more effective than soap and water for preventing IAD (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence), while another found little or no difference in effectiveness between a disposable washcloth containing 3% dimethicone and soap and water (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; 12 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The third trial reported lower erythema scores with a no-rinse skin cleanser compared with soap and water, but we were unable to analyse these data. In trials evaluating combinations of skin cleansers and leave-on products versus skin cleansing alone, one suggested the combined treatment may be more effective for preventing IAD (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 180 participants; very low certainty of evidence), and the other showed little to no difference between interventions (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.68; 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies showed little to no difference between a combination of leave-on products versus a single product (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.02; 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence); (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.86; 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In general, we cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of the tested interventions in preventing IAD because of the very low certainty of the evidence for all comparisons.

Adverse effects: pain One trial found that fewer people using a combination of skin cleansing and a leave-on product experienced pain compared with those receiving cleansing without a leave-on product (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.19; 180 participants; low-certainty evidence), and one trial found that fewer people using a no-rinse skin cleanser plus a skin cream developed pain compared with those using soap and water followed by a lotion (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.74; 31 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, our analyses of these two comparisons suggest there may be little to no difference between the tested interventions in terms of associated pain.

Adverse effects: itching One trial found that skin cleansing and a leave-on product may be less frequently associated with itching compared with a conventional skin care regimen with no leave-on product (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29; 180 participants; low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: We found limited evidence, of low and very low certainty, on the effectiveness of interventions for preventing IAD in adults. Consequently, it is unclear whether any skin cleanser or leave-on product, used alone or in combination, performs better than any other. There is some very uncertain evidence that using a skin cleanser may be better at preventing IAD than soap and water, and that using a combination of a skin cleanser with a leave-on product may be better at preventing IAD than using a skin cleanser alone. There is a need for high-quality confirmatory trials using standardised, comparable prevention regimens in different settings/regions.

预防成人失禁相关性皮炎的皮肤清洁剂和免洗产品干预。
背景:尿失禁相关性皮炎(IAD)是尿失禁、粪失禁或两者兼有的成年人常见的皮肤问题。预防包括皮肤护理干预措施,如皮肤清洁和使用皮肤保护剂/屏障(免洗产品)。目的:评估皮肤护理洗面奶、免洗产品和预防成人失禁相关性皮炎的程序的效果。检索方法:在2024年4月29日,我们检索了Cochrane失禁专业注册库(包括CENTRAL、MEDLINE、MEDLINE In-Process、MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print、ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO ICTRP),并手工检索了期刊和会议记录。我们检索了纳入研究的参考文献列表,以确定其他研究。选择标准:我们选择了在任何医疗机构进行的随机对照试验(rct)和准rct,受试者年龄在18岁以上,基线时无IAD。我们纳入了比较皮肤清洁干预和免洗产品或干预/免洗产品组合的有效性的试验。数据收集和分析:三位综述作者独立筛选标题、摘要和全文文章。四位综述作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。未以英文发表的研究数据由Cochrane Engage和综述作者网络的志愿者翻译和提取。主要结局是:有IAD的参与者人数和与干预相关的不良反应(疼痛、皮疹、瘙痒和其他严重不良反应)。次要结果是:对护肤产品或程序满意的参与者人数,在整个干预过程中对方案的依从性,以及生活质量(特定条件或一般条件)。我们使用GRADE来评估证据的确定性。主要结果:我们在定性综合中纳入了15项试验,共1020名参与者(41名参与者来自养老院;65人来自护理院和医院,914人来自医院)。参与者有尿失禁,大便失禁,或两者兼有。13项试验样本量较小,2项试验分别有180和174名参与者。6项试验评估短期结局(≤7天),4项中期结局(8天-1个月),1项长期结局(10个月-3个月)。在其余的研究中,评估的时间尚不清楚。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险很高。大量的异质性(研究人群、护肤产品、护肤程序、结果和测量工具)排除了荟萃分析。三个试验比较了皮肤清洁干预措施,五个试验比较了免洗产品或免洗产品的组合。七项试验比较了洗面奶和免洗产品的组合。患有失禁相关性皮炎的受试者人数三个试验比较了肥皂和水的洗面奶。一项研究提供的证据表明,使用泡沫清洁剂可能比肥皂和水更有效地预防IAD (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14至0.85;65名参与者;极低确定性证据),而另一项研究发现,含有3%二甲基硅氧烷的一次性毛巾与肥皂和水之间的有效性差异很小或没有差异(RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01至2.28;12个参与者;非常低确定性证据)。第三项试验报告,与肥皂和水相比,使用无冲洗皮肤清洁剂的红斑评分较低,但我们无法分析这些数据。在评估洗面奶和免洗产品联合使用与单独使用洗面奶相比的试验中,一项研究表明,联合使用可能更有效地预防IAD (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00至0.53;180名参与者;非常低的证据确定性),而其他干预措施之间几乎没有差异(RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14至3.68;31个参与者;非常低确定性证据)。两项研究显示,免洗产品组合与单一产品之间几乎没有差异(RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36至2.02;74名参与者;极低确定性证据);(RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 ~ 1.86;20个参与者;非常低确定性证据)。总的来说,由于所有比较的证据的确定性都很低,我们无法就所测试的干预措施在预防IAD方面的有效性得出有意义的结论。一项试验发现,与不使用免洗产品的人相比,使用洁面和免洗产品组合的人更少感到疼痛(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09至1.19;180名参与者;低确定性证据),一项试验发现,与使用肥皂和水再使用乳液的人相比,使用免冲洗洗面奶加护肤霜的人更少出现疼痛(RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19至1.74;31个参与者;确定性的证据)。 然而,我们对这两个比较的分析表明,在相关疼痛方面,测试干预措施之间可能几乎没有差异。一项试验发现,与不使用免洗产品的传统护肤方案相比,皮肤清洁和免洗产品与瘙痒的关联可能更少(RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01至0.29;180名参与者;确定性的证据)。作者的结论:我们发现有限的证据,低和非常低的确定性,关于预防成人IAD的干预措施的有效性。因此,目前尚不清楚是否有任何洁面产品或免洗产品,单独使用或组合使用,比其他任何产品表现更好。有一些非常不确定的证据表明,使用洗面奶可能比肥皂和水更能预防IAD,并且使用洗面奶和免洗产品的组合可能比单独使用洗面奶更能预防IAD。需要在不同环境/地区使用标准化的、可比较的预防方案进行高质量的验证性试验。
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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信