ArticleMedicine2020
Dressing interventions to heal pressure ulcers: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure ulcer (PU) is defined as a lesion or trauma to the skin and underlying tissue resulting from unrelieved pressure, shear, friction, moisture, or a combination of all these, usually appearing over a bony prominence. We aim to evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the effectiveness, safety, and economy of the dressing treatments for PU through an overview.
methodsWe searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, DynaMed Plus, as well as the Chinese databases without any language restriction. We will include meta-analyses that dressings treatments in the management of PUs. For each meta-analysis, we will estimate the effect size of a treatment through the random-effect model and the fixed-effect model, and we will evaluate between-study heterogeneity (Cochrane's Q and I statistics) and small-study effect (Egger's test); we will also estimate the evidence of excess significance bias. Methodological quality of each meta-analysis will be evaluated by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2.
resultsThis study is ongoing and the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable, since this is an overview based on published articles. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42020161232.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.