Dumville JC, Webster J, Evans D, Land L, et al.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Date of publication 2015 May 20;volume (5):CD011334.
1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 20;(5):CD011334. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub2.
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers.
Dumville JC(1), Webster J, Evans D, Land L.
Author information:
(1)School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and
pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying
tissue, or both. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for
pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to
facilitate decision-making regarding its use.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating
pressure ulcers in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS: For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015:
the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of
Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE
(In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There
were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of
NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study
selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS: The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants.
Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series
of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing'. One
study had a 24-week follow-up period, and two had a six-week follow-up period,
the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies
were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more 'Risk of bias' domains
and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported
usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12
participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the
study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on
positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse
events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available
regarding the effects of NPWT compared with alternatives for the treatment of
pressure ulcers. High uncertainty remains about the potential benefits or harms,
or both, of using this treatment for pressure ulcer management.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub2
PMID: 25992684 [Indexed for MEDLINE]
