Monographie

En ligne (disponible) - Monographie
Pressure ulcer treatment strategies : comparative effectiveness / SAHA, Somnath ; [et al].
Rockville, MD : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013, [488] p.

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/30... (06-01-2014)
Collection : Comparative effectiveness review ; no 90
Format de fichier : Adobe Acrobat PDF
Droits d'auteur : La reproduction de ce document à des fins non commerciales est autorisée à condition que la source soit dûment mentionnée.

Mots-clés principaux
:
Plaie de pression
Traitement (Thérapeutique)


Résumé :

Structured Abstract

Objectives. Pressure ulcers affect up to 3 million Americans and are a major source of
morbidity, mortality, and health care cost. This review summarizes evidence comparing the
effectiveness and safety of pressure ulcer treatment strategies.

Data sources. Articles published between January 1, 1985, and October 17, 2012, were
identified from searches of MEDLINE® (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCOhost),
EBM Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology
Assessment. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists from included studies and systematic reviews of pressure ulcer treatments. Gray literature, including unpublished data, abstracts, dissertations, and individual product packets from manufacturers, was also reviewed.

Review methods. The literature, quality of included studies, and extracted data were dualreviewed using predefined criteria. Results were summarized in evidence tables.

Summary
results were derived primarily from qualitative analysis and synthesis.

Results. We reviewed 7,274 titles and abstracts and 1,836 full-length articles. We included 174 studies (trials and observational studies) addressing the effectiveness and/or harms of different treatments for pressure ulcers. These studies examined a wide range of interventions, but sample sizes often were small. We found moderate-strength evidence that some interventions were associated with wound improvement, including the use of air-fluidized beds (compared with other support surfaces), protein-containing nutritional supplements (compared with placebos or other routine measures of nutritional support), radiant heat dressings (compared with other dressings), and electrical stimulation (compared with a sham treatment). Several other interventions had limited evidence of effectiveness (strength of evidence rated as low). Only a minority of studies examined complete wound healing as an outcome. In general, the evidence about the harms of any of these treatments was limited.

Limitations. Most studies were of poor quality and had followup periods inadequate to assess
complete wound healing. Studies often measured healing outcomes using heterogeneous
methods, making it difficult to compare results across studies.

Conclusions. There was limited evidence to draw firm conclusions about the best approaches for treating pressure ulcers, a finding consistent with other recent reviews on this topic. Future
research with larger sample sizes, more rigorous adherence to methodological standards for
clinical trials, longer followup periods, and more standardized and clinically meaningful
outcome measures is needed to inform clinical practice and policy

Illustrations : ill.
Langue : Anglais
Doc n° : 30710
NumRec : 6604003
Voir aussi
30710.pdf
30710.pdf
 

       

  Copier Permanent URL de cette page Ajouter cette page

     

disponible
Réserver
Pour réserver ce document, vous devez d'abord vous connecter


Aller vers :   IUGM    Fondation IUGM   Centre de recherche IUGM