Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23922167›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.

Jo C Dumville, Sohan Deshpande, Susan O'Meara, Katharine Speak

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Spider Bite Wound Care and Review of Traditional and Advanced Treatment Options.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Dual Burst and Sustained Release ofACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jo C DumvilleDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
Sohan Deshpande
Susan O'Meara
Katharine Speak
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

objectivesTo compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. SEARCH

methodsFor this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases 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) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound treatments in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN

resultsWe included five studies (535 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings, alginate dressings and a topical treatment. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing or a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing and a topical cream containing plant extracts. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing or a topical cream containing plant extracts. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Indexed as

Bandages, HydrocolloidWound HealingAmputation, SurgicalDiabetic FootHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23922167
PMCPMC7111300
OpenAlexW1552180285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.