Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 3 components including paste bandage vs 3 components including inelastic (short-stretch) bandage, Outcome

Objective To assess whether supplementation with calcium and cholecaliferol (vitamin D 3 ) reduces the risk of fracture in women with one or more risk factors for fracture of the hip. Design Pragmatic open randomised controlled trial. Setting Practice nurse led clinics in primary care. Participants 3314 women aged 70 and over with one or more risk factors for hip fracture: any previous fracture, low body weight ( < 58 kg), smoker, family history of hip fracture, or fair or poor self reported health. Intervention Daily oral supplementation using 1000 mg calcium with 800 IU cholecaliferol and information leaflet on dietary calcium intake and prevention of falls, or leaflet only (control group). Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was all clinical fractures and secondary outcome measures were adherence to treatment, falls, and quality of life (measured with the SF-12). Results 69% of the women who completed the follow-up questionnaire at 24 months were still taking supplements (55% with inclusion of randomised participants known to be alive). After a median follow-up of 25 months (range 18 to 42 months), clinical fracture rates were lower than expected in both groups but did not significantly differ for all clinical fractures (odds ratio for fracture in supplemented group 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.43). The odds ratio for hip fracture was 0.75 (0.31 to 1.78). The odds of a woman having a fall at six and 12 months was 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. Quality of life did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion We found no evidence that calcium and vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of clinical fractures in women with one or more risk factors for hip fracture. Registration ISRCTN26118436, controlled trials registry.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of larval therapy with a standard debridement technique (hydrogel) for sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers.Design Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial.Setting Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom.Participants 267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more.Interventions Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable).Results Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001).Conclusions Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692.

Background Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development. Objectives This systematic review seeks to establish: (1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and, (2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention. Search methods In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis.

No abstract

BackgroundCare bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.MethodsThis systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.ResultsIn total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).ConclusionsVery low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42016033175 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0670-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

We can use decision models to estimate cost effectiveness, quantify uncertainty regarding the adoption decision and provide estimates of the value of further research. In many cases, the existence of only limited data with which to populate a decision model can mean that a cost-effectiveness analysis either does not proceed or may misrepresent the degree of uncertainty associated with model inputs. An example is the case of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) used to treat severe pressure ulceration, for which the evidence base is limited and sparse. There is, however, substantial practical experience of using this treatment and its comparators. We can capture this knowledge quantitatively to inform a cost-effectiveness model by eliciting beliefs from experts. This paper describes the design and conduct of an elicitation exercise to generate estimates of multiple uncertain model inputs and validate analytical assumptions for a decision model on the use of NPWT. In designing the exercise, the primary focus was the use of elicitation to inform decision models (multistate models), where representations of uncertain beliefs need to be probabilistically coherent. This paper demonstrates that it is feasible to collect formally elicited evidence to inform decision models.