ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Effects of different dressings in the prevention of facial skin pressure injury related to non-invasive ventilation: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article 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 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.
- Effects of different dressings in the prevention of facial skin pressure injury related to non-invasive ventilation: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the preventive effect of different dressings on pressure injuries related to non-invasive ventilation equipment and to screen the efficacy of dressings. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) and Weipu Database (VIP) were used for the search from the date of inception of each database to 15 October 2023. The quality of the data was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Stata 16.0 Software was used to analysis and ranking of different types of dressings. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials on 7 interventions were included in the final analysis. The effectiveness of these in preventing the overall incidence of pressure injuries is ranked from best to worst as follows: hydrogel dressing > foam dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze. Sixteen studies reported the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries, the effectiveness in preventing the incidence of Stage I pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > film dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Fourteen studies reported the incidence of Stages I/II pressure injuries, the effective in preventing the incidence of Stages I and II pressure injuries was ranked from best to least effective: foam dressing > hydrogel dressing > petroleum jelly gauze dressing > hydrocolloid dressing > clean gauze dressing > sterile gauze dressing. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of different dressings, both hydrogel and foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure injuries related to non-invasive ventilation equipment.
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.