This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (14)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatologic Disorders  • Review  • Wound Healing  • Dermatologic Procedures  • Dermatologic Procedures, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Systematic Review

Guillaume Chaby, MD; Patricia Senet, MD; Michel Vaneau, PharmD; Philippe Martel, MD; Jean-Claude Guillaume, MD; Sylvie Meaume, MD; Luc Téot, MD, PhD; Clélia Debure, MD; Anne Dompmartin, MD; Hélène Bachelet, PharmD; Hervé Carsin, MD; Véronique Matz, PharmD; Jean Louis Richard, MD; Jean Michel Rochet, MD; Nathalie Sales-Aussias, PharmD; Anne Zagnoli, MD; Catherine Denis, MD; Bernard Guillot, MD; Olivier Chosidow, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(10):1297-1304.

Objective  To critically review the literature on the efficacy of modern dressings in healing chronic and acute wounds by secondary intention.

Data Sources  Search of 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register) from January 1990 to June 2006, completed by manual research, for articles in English and in French.

Study Selection  The end points for selecting studies were the rate of complete healing, time to complete healing, rate of change in wound area, and general performance criteria (eg, pain, ease of use, avoidance of wound trauma on dressing removal, ability to absorb and contain exudates). Studies were selected by a single reviewer. Overall, 99 studies met the selection criteria (89 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 3 meta-analyses [1 of which came from 1 of the selected systematic reviews], 7 systematic reviews, and 1 cost-effectiveness study).

Data Extraction  The RCTs, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies were critically appraised by 2 reviewers to assess the clinical evidence level according to a modification of Sackett's 1989 criteria. Ninety-three articles were finally graded.

Data Synthesis  We found no level A studies, 14 level B studies (11 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses), and 79 level C studies. Hydrocolloid dressings proved superior to saline gauze or paraffin gauze dressings for the complete healing of chronic wounds, and alginates were better than other modern dressings for debriding necrotic wounds. Hydrofiber and foam dressings, when compared with other traditional dressings or a silver-coated dressing, respectively, reduced time to healing of acute wounds.

Conclusions  Our systematic review provided only weak levels of evidence on the clinical efficacy of modern dressings compared with saline or paraffin gauze in terms of healing, with the exception of hydrocolloids. There was no evidence that any of the modern dressings was better than another, or better than saline or paraffin gauze, in terms of general performance criteria. More wound care research providing level A evidence is needed.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Consensus Panel Recommendations for Chronic and Acute Wound Dressings
Michel Vaneau, Guillaume Chaby, Bernard Guillot, Philippe Martel, Patricia Senet, Luc Téot, and Olivier Chosidow
Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(10):1291-1294.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Major Developments in Wound Care: A Critical Appraisal
Wollina
INT J LOW EXTREM WOUNDS 2008;7:6-8.
 

Systematic Reviews: Grading Recommendations and Evidence Quality
Robinson et al.
Arch Dermatol 2008;144:97-99.
FULL TEXT  

Consensus Panel Recommendations for Chronic and Acute Wound Dressings
Vaneau et al.
Arch Dermatol 2007;143:1291-1294.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT