Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31955323›Full record

SynthesisClinical rheumatology2020

Digital ulcer debridement in systemic sclerosis: a systematic literature review.

Michael Hughes, Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch, Ana Maria Gheorghiu, Emanuela Praino, Robert David Sandler, Yonit Tavor, Cosimo Bruni, Marco Matucci-Cerinic

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Michael HughesDepartment of Rheumatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. Michael.hughes-6@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3361-4909
Begonya Alcacer-PitarchLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Ana Maria GheorghiuDepartment of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology, Cantacuzino Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Emanuela PrainoRheumatology Unit, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Robert David SandlerDepartment of Rheumatology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Yonit TavorB. Shine Rheumatology Unit, Rambam Health Care Campus, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Cosimo BruniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marco Matucci-CerinicDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Royal Hallamshire Hospital · GBUniversity of Florence · ITCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · RORambam Health Care Campus · ILUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health ICA-CL-2018-04-ST2-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal wound care is an essential component in the management of systemic sclerosis (SSc) digital ulcers (DUs). DU debridement has been suggested to reduce ulcer-related pain and improve tissue healing. However, only a minority of rheumatologists perform DU debridement, and there is no standard of care/protocol. Our objectives were to (i) evaluate the current evidence for the use of debridement in DU management and (ii) assess whether there are any specific protocols. A systematic literature review was performed searching the PubMed database (between 01/01/1950-01/03/2019) in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted the abstracts/full manuscripts. Articles in English, which focussed on SSc-DU debridement/curettage, were included. Exclusion criteria included studies of juvenile/paediatric patients and basic/non-clinical research. Our search identified 1497 studies of which 4 studies were included in our final analysis. Three studies used scalpel debridement, and one study used this in combination with autolytic debridement. No studies specifically reported the effect on DU healing from debridement. Autolytic debridement with hyaluronate-based products was associated with significant ulcer pain and inflammation. Local anaesthetic significantly reduces pain both during and after debridement. Combined local and oral analgesia is often required for more severe or infected DUs. DU (scalpel and autolytic) debridement is being used by some clinicians in rheumatology; however, there are no standardised protocols. To improve wound care for SSc-DUs, future research should focus on developing a standardised protocol for SSc-DU debridement, with a view to facilitate randomised controlled trials to demonstrate safety and treatment efficacy.Key Points• Optimal wound care is an essential component in the management of systemic sclerosis-digital ulcers.• 'Sharp' debridement uses a scalpel, whereas 'autolytic' debridement uses dressings to optimize endogenous tissue lysis.• There is significant variation in the use of digital ulcer debridement in systemic sclerosis.• A standardized protocol and randomized controlled trials are needed to demonstrate debridement the safety and efficacy of digital ulcer debridement in systemic sclerosis.

Indexed as

Anesthetics, LocalDebridementFingersHumansPainPain ManagementScleroderma, SystemicSkin UlcerWound HealingAnesthetics, LocalAutolytic debridementDebridementDigital ulcersSclerodermaSharp debridementSystemic sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID31955323
OpenAlexW2999954428

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.