Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28267125›Full record

ArticleJournal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society

Clinical Evaluation of a Skin Protectant for the Management of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis: An Open-Label, Nonrandomized, Prospective Study.

Mary R Brennan, Catherine T Milne, Marie Agrell-Kann, Bruce P Ekholm

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mary R BrennanMary R. Brennan, MBA, RN, CWON, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York. Catherine T. Milne, MSN, APRN, BC-ANP, CWOCN-AP, Connecticut Clinical Nursing Associates, Bristol, Connecticut. Marie Agrell-Kann, MSN, RN, CDE, CWCN, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York. Bruce P. Ekholm, MS, 3M, St Paul, Minnesota.
Catherine T Milne
Marie Agrell-Kann
Bruce P Ekholm
KAN Research Institute · JP3M (United States) · USNorth Shore University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an investigational skin protectant product at managing severe skin breakdown associated with incontinence.

designOpen-label, nonrandomized, prospective study. SUBJECTS AND

settingThe sample comprised 16 patients; inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18 years, cared for in the intensive care unit of a level I trauma center hospital or in long-term care facilities in the northeast region of the United States, and had incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). Twelve of the patients had epidermal skin loss and 4 had severe redness.

methodsThe investigational product is a formulation based on acrylate chemistry. The skin protectant application schedule was twice weekly for up to 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 applications during the study period. The skin was evaluated via a skin assessment instrument specifically designed for use in this study; this instrument has not undergone validation studies. The main outcome measure was changes in the instrument score over time. In addition, complete reepithelialization was recorded when observed, and pain scores (associated with IAD) were noted in participants who were able to report pain.

resultsThe IAD score improved in 13 of 16 patients, remained unchanged in 1 patient, and deteriorated in 2 patients. The median percent improvement in the skin assessment instrument was 96% (P = .013). Four of the patients with epidermal skin loss had complete reepithelialization of the skin surface with 4 to 6 applications of the skin protectant, and 5 had substantial improvement. The 4 patients with severe red skin returned to healthy normal skin with 2 to 4 skin protectant applications. Substantial pain reduction was reported by all 9 patients who reported pain at enrollment. No adverse events associated with the skin protectant application were reported during data collection.

conclusionResults of this study suggest that an acrylate-based product, evaluated here for the first time in patients, may be effective as a protective barrier in the presence of continued incontinence. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAcrylatesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDermatitisFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesUrinary IncontinenceAcrylates

Identifiers

PMID28267125
PMCPMC5344181
OpenAlexW2593709694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.