Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42573060›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

Interventions to reduce pain at dressing change of chronic wounds: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Fiona Campbell, Ruth Wong, Georgina Wilkins, Menghan Wang, Katie Twentyman, Richard Cooper, Andrew Kirkcaldy

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Fiona CampbellCentre for Evidence and Implementation Science, University of Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4141-8863
Ruth WongSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4536-4794
Georgina WilkinsCentre for Evidence and Implementation Science, University of Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8800-3596
Menghan WangSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-3130-0574
Katie TwentymanInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-6688-560X
Richard CooperSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5110-0384
Andrew KirkcaldyDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8455-8786

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pain during dressing changes is a major concern for individuals with chronic wounds, such as venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and pressure sores. These procedures, often performed in community settings, can cause significant physical and emotional distress. Despite widespread recognition of this issue, there has been no comprehensive synthesis of evidence to guide effective pain management strategies during dressing changes. Objective: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to evaluate interventions designed to reduce pain during dressing changes for chronic wounds and to explore the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: Twenty-nine studies were included: 8 effectiveness studies, 11 surveys and 10 qualitative studies. Data were sourced from six electronic databases and analysed using a convergent segregated approach. Quantitative data were summarised using synthesis without meta-analysis guidance, while qualitative and survey data were analysed thematically. Findings were integrated using the preventing pain at dressing change pathway, a framework developed with stakeholder input to map interventions across the dressing change process. Results: Pain was found to be highly variable and influenced by wound type, healing stage and previous experiences. Non-adhesive and ibuprofen-releasing foam dressings consistently reduced pain, while gauze dressings were frequently associated with increased discomfort. Topical treatments, such as eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics cream and morphine gel, showed promise. Patients valued skilled, communicative nursing care and involvement in their own treatment. Distraction techniques and post-dressing pain relief were identified as important but under-researched. Pain assessment practices were inconsistent, and formal tools were rarely used. Limitations: The broad scope of eligible interventions increases the risk of missing relevant studies. Most studies were small and at moderate to high risk of bias. Future work: Future research should focus on evaluating underused interventions (e.g. distraction, patient involvement), improving pain assessment practices, and addressing equity gaps in pain management. Investment in nurse training and consistent care protocols is essential. Conclusions: Effective pain management during dressing changes requires a holistic, patient-centred approach. While some interventions show promise, many commonly used strategies lack robust evidence. The preventing pain at dressing change pathway offers a practical framework for guiding future practice, research and policy development. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR131023.

Indexed as

BandagesPainPain ManagementWounds and InjuriesChronic DiseaseHumansPressure UlcerWound HealingCHRONIC WOUNDSDRESSING CHANGEDRESSINGSMIXED-METHODS SYNTHESISNURSING CAREPADC DRESSING PATHWAYPAINPAIN RELIEFTOPICAL AGENTS

Identifiers

PMID42573060
PMCPMC13501245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.