Get access

Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care

Authors

  • F. E. Brölmann,

    1. Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • D. T. Ubbink,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    2. Department of General Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • E. A. Nelson,

    1. School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • K. Munte,

    1. Department of Dermatology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • C. M. A. M. van der Horst,

    1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • H. Vermeulen

    1. Department of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    2. Department of Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Background:

Decisions on local and systemic wound treatment vary among surgeons and are frequently based on expert opinion. The aim of this meta-review was to compile best available evidence from systematic reviews in order to formulate conclusions to support evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.

Methods:

All Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), published by the Cochrane Wounds and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Groups, and that investigated therapeutic and preventive interventions, were searched in the Cochrane Database up to June 2011. Two investigators independently categorized each intervention into five levels of evidence of effect, based on size and homogeneity, and the effect size of the outcomes.

Results:

After screening 149 CSRs, 44 relevant reviews were included. These contained 109 evidence-based conclusions: 30 on venous ulcers, 30 on acute wounds, 15 on pressure ulcers, 14 on diabetic ulcers, 12 on arterial ulcers and eight on miscellaneous chronic wounds. Strong conclusions could be drawn regarding the effectiveness of: therapeutic ultrasonography, mattresses, cleansing methods, closure of surgical wounds, honey, antibiotic prophylaxis, compression, lidocaine–prilocaine cream, skin grafting, antiseptics, pentoxifylline, debridement, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, prostanoids and spinal cord stimulation.

Conclusion:

For some wound care interventions, robust evidence exists upon which clinical decisions should be based. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary