Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-ana
- PDF / 2,299,859 Bytes
- 26 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 17 Downloads / 174 Views
RESEARCH
Open Access
Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials Yvonne Zens1* , Michael Barth, Heiner C. Bucher2, Katrin Dreck1, Moritz Felsch1, Wolfram Groß1, Thomas Jaschinski1, Heike Kölsch1, Mandy Kromp1, Inga Overesch1, Stefan Sauerland1 and Sven Gregor3
Abstract Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. Methods: We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). Results: We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD − 4.78, 95% CI − 7.79 to − 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise
Data Loading...
