Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers

Arora, Mohit; Harvey, Lisa; Glinsky, Joanne; Nier, Lianne; Lavrencic, L; Kifley, Annette; Cameron, Ian D.

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012196.pub2

Cited by 33 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1) shows the number of studies identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage [21]. There were 27 reviews included in the qualitative syntheses; nine for PI prevention [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35], and 21 for PI treatment [28,31,34,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Three reviews [28,31,34], examined both PI prevention and treatment.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-one reviews published between 2006 and 2020 included 178 studies [28,31,34,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53], and 18,348 participants (range = 40 to 6963). Eleven reviews reported the GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence for each outcome across included studies, judging them to be mostly low or very low quality [34,38,[40][41][42][43]45,49,[51][52][53]. Only three reviews reported moderate quality/certainty evidence [49,52,53].…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven reviews reported the GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence for each outcome across included studies, judging them to be mostly low or very low quality [34,38,[40][41][42][43]45,49,[51][52][53]. Only three reviews reported moderate quality/certainty evidence [49,52,53]. Of those seven reviews that did not use GRADE, authors described the studies as having "lack of evidence", "poor quality evidence", "no clear evidence", "insufficient evidence", "no good evidence" and/or "increased risk of bias".…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries: A meta-synthesis of Cochrane Reviews

Walker

Gillespie

McInnes

et al. 2020

Journal of Tissue Viability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are many high-quality systematic reviews to inform practice around pressure injury (PI) prevention and treatment. However, they are often unable to provide recommendations for practice and research due to low quality trials. Objectives: To evaluate current systematic review evidence on the prevention and treatment of PI. Methods: This meta-synthesis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only Cochrane Reviews were included. Evidence from reviews was independently screened and assessed for risk of bias and certainty using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations by two authors, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, and a narrative synthesis undertaken. Results: Twenty-five Cochrane Reviews were included; eight for PI prevention and 19 for PI treatment. Prevention reviews included 102 studies (27,933 participants). Treatment reviews included 154 studies (over 16,936 participants). Three prevention reviews and nine treatment reviews reported risk of bias, judging the included trials as having low or very low certainty evidence. Two reviews reported moderate certainty evidence. Methodological quality of the systematic reviews was rated as high for eight reviews (7/19 for treatment and 1/6 for prevention). Recommendations for prevention included repositioning, nutrition and support surfaces. Recommendations for treatment focused on nutrition and repositioning. Conclusions: This meta-synthesis confirms the low-certainty of PI prevention and treatment trials, resulting in few recommendations to inform clinical practice. Generation of high-quality evidence on PI prevention and treatment is imperative.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries: A meta-synthesis of Cochrane Reviews

Walker

Gillespie

McInnes

et al. 2020

Journal of Tissue Viability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, heterogeneity was shown to be high in the studies included in both of these reviews, which also included at least one non-RCT [72,73]. An upcoming Cochrane review of electrical stimulation for treating PUs will further add to the evidence base for this intervention [79].…”

Section: 'Empty' Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of additional systematic reviews have been registered with the Cochrane Wounds Editorial Base, the protocols for which are currently in the process of being developed, or the reviews themselves undertaken [79][80][81][82][83][84][85] ( Table 3). In addition to these, protocols for other (non-Cochrane) systematic reviews have recently been published, which look specifically at interventions for PUs in people with SCI (e.g., self-management interventions to improve skin care for PU prevention [86]).…”

Section: Upcoming Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%