Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39362798›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2024

Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: A systematic review.

Saskia Schwarzer, Jose Luis Lazaro‐Martinez, Amanda Killeen, Paulo Alves, Andrea Gledhill, Erik Nygren, Lawrence A Lavery, Matthew Malone

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Saskia SchwarzerSouth Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3854-8031
Jose Luis Lazaro‐MartinezComplutense University of Madrid, Diabetic Foot Unit, University Clinic of Podiatry, Madrid, Spain.
Amanda KilleenSchool of Podiatric Medicine, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Harlingen, Texas, USA.
Paulo AlvesWounds Research Laboratory, Institute of Health Sciences, Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Health, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6348-3316
Andrea GledhillGreat Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Swindon, UK.
Erik NygrenWound Care Research and Development, Mölnlycke Health Care AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Lawrence A LaveryDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Matthew MaloneWound Care Research and Development, Mölnlycke Health Care AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2946-8841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case-control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.

Indexed as

BandagesWound HealingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeWound InfectionWounds and InjuriesCarboxymethylcellulose Sodiumchronic woundsclinical outcomesDACC‐coated dressingshard to heal woundsinfection management

Identifiers

PMID39362798
PMCPMC11449527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.