Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29045004›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2018

Wound care evidence, knowledge and education amongst nurses: a semi-systematic literature review.

Lynn Welsh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International wound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. HarnessingPharmaceutics · 2024
    Review
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

1 author.

Lynn WelshSchool of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine the knowledge and skills of nurses involved in wound care, to provide a critical overview of the current evidence base underpinning wound care and to determine the extent of utilisation of existing evidence by nurses involved in the management of wounds in practice. A semi-systematic review of the literature was undertaken on Cinahl, Medline Science Direct and Cochrane using the search terms: wound, tissue viability, education, nurse, with limitations set for dates between 2009 and 2017 and English language. Shortfalls were found in the evidence base underpinning wound care and in links between evidence and practice, prevalence of ritualistic practice and in structured education at pre- and post-registration levels. The evidence underpinning wound care practice should be further developed, including the conduction of independent studies and research of qualitative design to obtain rich data on both patient and clinician experiences of all aspects of wound management. More structured wound care education programmes, both at pre-registration/undergraduate and professional development levels, should be established.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultChronic DiseaseEvidence-Based NursingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing Staff, HospitalPractice Guidelines as TopicWounds and InjuriesEducationNurseTissue ViabilityWound

Identifiers

PMID29045004
PMCPMC7949797

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.