Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.

backgroundPressure ulcers occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure over bony prominences. They are difficult to heal, costly, and reduce quality of life. Dressings and topical agents (lotions, creams, and oils) for pressure ulcer prevention are widely used. However, their effectiveness is unclear. This is the third update of this review.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting. SEARCH

methodsWe used the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was November 2022. We imposed no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that enroled people at risk of developing a pressure ulcer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN

resultsIn this update, we added 33 new studies, resulting in a total of 51 trials (13,303 participants). Of these, 31 studies involved dressings, 16 topical agents, and four included both dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence. Dressings Pressure ulcer incidence We made a total of 13 comparisons with 9027 participants. We present seven prioritised comparisons in the summary of findings (SoF) tables, as follows: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (18 trials, 5903 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.77); foam dressing versus film dressing (3 trials, 569 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67); hydrocellular foam dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 80 participants; RR not estimable); silicone foam dressing type 1 versus silicone foam dressing type 2 (2 trials, 376 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15); foam dressing versus fatty acid (2 trials, 300 participants; RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.72); polyurethane film versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 160 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); and hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing (2 trials, 230 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on pressure ulcer development. Pressure ulcer stage Three comparisons reported pressure ulcer (PU) stage. Silicone foam dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (8 trials, 1823 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79); PU stage 2 (10 trials, 2873 participants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73); PU stage 3 (3 trials, 718 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.21); PU stage 4 (2 trials, 610 participants; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.77); unstageable PU (1 trial, 366 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.09); deep tissue injury (3 trials, 840 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08). Foam dressing versus film dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.82); deep tissue injury (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.93). Hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.66). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on different stages of pressure ulcer development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (3 trials, 2317 participants; RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence). Silicone foam dressings may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Topical agents Pressure ulcer incidence We evaluated seven comparisons with 4276 participants. We present five prioritised comparisons in the SoF tables as follows: fatty acid versus placebo (6 trials, 2201 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36); fatty acid versus usual care (7 trials, 1058 participants; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84); cream versus fatty acid (1 trial, 120 participants; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.03); cream versus placebo (3 trials, 513 participants; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.36); and cream versus usual care (1 trial, 47 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.04). All very low-certainty evidence. It is very uncertain whether they make any difference to PU development. Pressure ulcer stage Two comparisons reported PU stage. Fatty acid versus usual care: PU stage 1 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03); PU stage 2 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.53). Cream versus placebo: PU stage 3 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.55); PU stage 4 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.11). Both low or very low-certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether they make any difference to the stage of PU development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: fatty acid versus placebo (3 trials, 967 participants; RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.50 to 38.30; very low-certainty evidence). Fatty acid may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. Risk of bias and imprecision were the main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe included studies tested a wide variety of dressings and topical agents. The evidence for all interventions is uncertain or very uncertain; thus, it is unclear whether any of the dressings or topical agents studied make any difference to pressure ulcer development. Future studies should engage with stakeholders to determine priority interventions.