0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Dressings for Acute and Chronic Wounds 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. doi:10.1001/archderm.143.10.1297.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

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.

Figures in this Article

Topics

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Flowchart describing the selection of studies for analysis. MA indicates meta-analysis; RCTs, randomized controlled trials. The asterisk indicates that 1 of the MAs came from a selected systematic review. The dagger indicates that 6 of the 7 systematic reviews, consensus, and guidelines did not have any RCTs or MAs and were not critically appraised.15

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

8,053 Views
99 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();