SynthesisNursing open2023
Efficacy of different types of dressings on pressure injuries: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of different types of dressings on pressure injuries: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Nursing open · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of heparin gel's effects on stage II pressure ulcers: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of medical research · 2025Trial
- Effects of two securement methods on peripherally inserted central catheter stability and skin integrity in very low birth weight infants: a retrospective study.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Dual-Network Protein Hydrogels Promote Rapid Hemostasis and Immune-Regulated Scarless Tissue Regeneration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Intensive Care Nurses’ Adherence to Evidence‐Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers and Their Self‐Efficacy: A Cross‐Sectional Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of healing outcomes and associated factors in patients with pressure ulcers.Medicine · 2026Article
- Low-frequency ultrasound-assisted application of Ag/Cu nanocomposites as a promising strategy for the treatment of purulent wounds.Discover nano · 2026Article
- Synthesis and Characterization of Ibuprofen-TiOBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A randomised control trial to compareJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2025Article
- Narrative Review of the Use of Hydrocolloids in Dermatology: Applications and Benefits.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Nursing management of pulmonary mucormycosis with skin damage secondary to amphotericin B colloidal dispersion: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The efficacy of sacral foam dressing in preventing sacral pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Electrospun Antimicrobial Drug Delivery Systems and Hydrogels Used for Wound Dressings.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the effectiveness of different dressings on pressure injuries and screen the dressings for efficacy.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis.
methodsArticles published from several electronic databases and other resources were selected. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of selected studies.
resultsTwenty-five studies that contained data on moist dressings (hydrocolloidal dressing, foam dressing, silver ion dressing, biological wound dressing, hydrogel dressing, polymeric membrane dressing) and sterile gauze dressings (traditional gauze dressings) were included. All RCTs were at a medium to high risk of bias. Moist dressings were found to be more advantageous than the traditional dressings. Hydrocolloid dressings [RR = 1.38, 95% CI (1.18, 1.60)] showed a higher cure rate than sterile gauze dressing and foam dressings [RR = 1.37, 95% CI (1.16, 1.61)]. Silver ion dressings [RR = l.37, 95% CI (1.08, 1. 73)] showed a higher cure rate than sterile gauze dressings. Sterile gauze dressing dressings [RR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.44, 0.78)] showed a lower cure rate compared with polymeric membrane dressings; whereas Sterile gauze dressing dressings [RR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.47, 1.37)] had a lower cure rate compared to biological wound dressings. Foam and hydrocolloid dressings were associated with the least healing time. Few dressing changes were required for moist dressings.
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.