Maggots as a wound debridement agent for chronic venous leg ulcers under graduated compression bandages: A randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Larval debridement therapy improves wound debridement in chronic venous leg ulcers treated with multilayer compression bandages. However, no subsequent improvement in ulcer healing was demonstrated.

Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review

“…Among these 16 studies, 12 identified that having defined a set of "too restrictive" selection criteria was a major issue, which led to a lack of eligible patients. [11][12][13][14]17,19,23,24,27,30,33,35 To improve recruitment, 3 studies amended the participant selection criteria. 10,23,35 Seven studies reported that fewer patients were eligible, 10,14,15,18,27,30,34 even when on-site clinicians were consulted during study conception.…”

“…Characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 2. Studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 12, 44.4%) 10,11,14,15,19,[25][26][27]30,31,33,34 ; Australia (n = 4, 14.8%) 17,23,28,29 ; the United States (n = 2, 7.4%) 12,36 ; and 1 each from Canada (3.7%), 35 Germany (3.7%), 18 India (3.7%), 20 Italy (3.7%), 32 Mexico (3.7%), 22 and New Zealand (3.7%). 21 The remaining 3 studies (11.1%) were conducted in more than 1 country: the United States and Canada 13 or the United Kingdom 24 and the European Union and Australia.…”

“…16 Intervention and control groups are defined in Table 2; the participants' characteristics, recruitment rate, and quality metric score are outlined in Table 3. Of those which explicitly stated the target sample size (n = 25), only 3 studies (12.0%) achieved the desired number of participants, 11,12,27 while 4 studies (16.0%) achieved less than 20% of target recruitment. 10,18,19,30 The recruitment rate, defined as a percentage of the number of participants enrolled over the number of patients screened, ranged from 0.5% 19 to 95.2%.…”

“…Recruitment reporting quality of 3 included studies was not assessed as these were methodology papers 10,23 or a qualitative study. 18 As summarised in Table 3, among the 24 studies where a quality assessment was conducted, 3 (12.5%) were assessed as "high" quality, 11,20,35 and 21 (87.5%) were classified as "low" quality in relation to recruitment description. [12][13][14][15][16][17]19,21,22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]36 All studies explicitly outlined the eligibility criteria of the targeted population, and a majority of the studies specified the recruitment setting (n = 20, 83.3%).…”

“…[12][13][14][15][16][17]19,21,22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]36 All studies explicitly outlined the eligibility criteria of the targeted population, and a majority of the studies specified the recruitment setting (n = 20, 83.3%). [11][12][13][14]17,[19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][34][35][36] Four studies (16.7%) specified the role recruiters played in usual patient care, 11,17,31,35 and no study (0.0%) reported the time spent planning/preparing the recruitment. Although no study was excluded on the basis of the quality of reporting, assessments are included in this review to inform and improve future reporting of barriers to recruitment.…”