Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Oct 12;10(10):CD011332.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011332.pub2.

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers

Rachel M Walker  1 , Brigid M Gillespie, Lukman Thalib, Niall S Higgins, Jennifer A Whitty
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers

Rachel M Walker et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence-based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision-making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.

Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting.

Search methods: In February 2017 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

Selection criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above).

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors.

Main results: We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers.The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study's estimated effect.We present data for four comparisons.One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision.Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short-term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow-up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI -4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision.The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow-up times ranged from short-term (8 weeks or less) to medium-term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD -35.80 days, 95% CI -56.77 to -14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence.

Authors' conclusions: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Rachel Walker: none known

Brigid M Gillespie: none known

Lukman Thalib: none known

Niall S Higgins: none known

Jennifer Whitty: none known.

Figures

1
1
Figure 1: Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Foam dressing compared with other foam dressing, Outcome 1 Incidence of healing, short‐term follow‐up.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Foam dressing compared with other foam dressing, Outcome 2 Adverse events, short‐term follow‐up.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Foam dressings compared with hydrocolloid dressing, Outcome 1 Incidence of healing, short‐term follow‐up.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Foam dressings compared with hydrocolloid dressing, Outcome 2 Adverse events, short‐term follow‐up.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Foam dressings compared with hydrocolloid dressing, Outcome 3 Pain, short‐term follow‐up.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Foam dressing compared with hydrogel dressing, Outcome 1 Incidence of healing, short‐term follow‐up.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Foam dressing compared with hydrogel dressing, Outcome 2 Time to complete healing (in days), short‐term follow‐up.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Foam dressing compared with hydrogel dressing, Outcome 3 Adverse event, short‐term follow‐up.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Foam dressing compared with hydrogel dressing, Outcome 4 Reduction in ulcer size per day.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Foam dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings, Outcome 1 Incidence of healing.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Foam dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings, Outcome 2 Time to complete healing (in days), medium‐term follow‐up.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Foam dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings, Outcome 3 Adverse events, medium‐term follow‐up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011332

References

References to studies included in this review

Bale 1997 {published data only}
    1. Bale S, Squires D, Varnon T, Walker A, Benbrow M, Harding KG. A comparison of two dressings in pressure sore management. Journal of Wound Care 1997;6(10):463‐6. [PUBMED: 9455271] - PubMed
Bale 1998 {published data only}
    1. Bale S, Hagelstein S, Banks V, Harding KG. Costs of dressings in the community. Journal of Wound Care 1998;7(7):327‐30. [PUBMED: 9791356] - PubMed
Banks 1994a {published data only}
    1. Banks V, Harding KG. Superficial pressure sores: comparing two regimes. Journal of Wound Care 1994;3(1):8‐10. [ISSN: 0969‐0700] - PubMed
Meaume 2003 {published data only}
    1. Meaume S, Looverbosch D, Heyman H, Romanelli M, Ciangherotti A, Charpin S. A study to compare a new self‐adherent soft silicone dressing with a self‐adherent polymer dressing in Stage II pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Management 2003;49(9):44‐51. [PUBMED: 14581709] - PubMed
Payne 2009 {published data only}
    1. Payne WG, Posnett J, Alvarez O, Brown‐Etris M, Jameson G, Wolcott R, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess the cost‐effectiveness of a modern foam dressing versus a traditional saline gauze dressing in the treatment of Stage II pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Management 2009;55(2):50‐5. [PUBMED: 19246785] - PubMed
Seeley 1999 {published data only}
    1. Seeley J, Jensen JL, Hutcherson J. A randomized clinical study comparing a hydrocellular dressing to a hydrocolloid dressing in the management of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Management 1999;45(6):39‐44, 46‐7. [PUBMED: 10655861] - PubMed
Sopata 2002 {published data only}
    1. Sopata M, Lucak J, Ciupinska M. Effect of bacteriological status on pressure ulcer healing in patients with advanced cancer. Journal of Wound Care 2002;11(3):107‐10. [PUBMED: 11933727] - PubMed
Souliotis 2016 {published data only}
    1. Souliotis K, Kalemikerakis I, Saridi M, Papageorgiou M, Kalokerinou A. A cost and clinical effectiveness analysis among moist wound healing dressings versus traditional methods in home care patients with pressure ulcers. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2016;24:596‐601. [PUBMED: 27037729] - PubMed
Thomas 1997 {published data only}
    1. Thomas S, Banks V, Bale S, Fear‐Price M, Hagelstein S, Harding KG, et al. A comparison of two dressings in the management of chronic wounds. Journal of Wound Care 1997;6(8):383‐6. [PUBMED: 9341430] - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Ashby 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ashby RL, Dumville JC, Soars MO, McGinnis E, Stubbs N, Torgerson DJ, et al. A pilot randomised controlled trial of negative pressure wound therapy to treat Grade III/IV pressure ulcers. Trials 2012;13(119):16. [ISRCTN69032034; PUBMED: 22839453] - PMC - PubMed
Avanzi 2000 {unpublished data only}
    1. Avanzi A, Martinelli M, Accardi S, Giraudi C, Peroli P. Adhesive hydrocellular dressing vs hydrocolloid dressing in the treatment of 2nd and 3rd degree PUS: a prospective, controlled randomised comparative multi‐centre clinical evaluation. www.akademie‐zwm.ch/uploads/tx_scpublications/Allevynheel_ProfBodi_Firenze2001.pdf (accessed 10 August 2016).
Banks 1994b {published data only}
    1. Banks V, Bale S, Harding K. The use of two dressings for moderately exuding pressure sores. Journal of Wound Care 1994;3(3):132‐4. - PubMed
Banks 1994c {published data only}
    1. Banks V, Bale SE, Harding KG. Comparing two dressings for exuding pressure sores in community patients. Journal of Wound Care 1994;3(4):175‐8. - PubMed
Banks 1997 {published data only}
    1. Banks V, Bale S, Harding K, Harding EF. Evaluation of a new polyurethane foam dressing. Journal of Wound Care 1997;6(6):266‐8. [PUBMED: 9274262 ] - PubMed
Brown‐Etris 1996 {published data only}
    1. Brown‐Etris M, Fowler E, Papen J, Stanfield J, Harris A, Tintle T, et al. Comparison and evaluation of the performance characteristics, usability and effectiveness on wound healing of Transorbent versus Duoderm CGF. Fifth European Conference on Advances in Wound Management; 1995 November; Harrogate. London: Macmillan Magazines Ltd, 1996:151‐4. [ISBN: 0333680820]
Diehm 2005 {published data only}
    1. Diehm C, Lawall H. Evaluation of Tielle hydropolymer dressings in the management of chronic exuding wounds in primary care. International Wound Journal 2005;2(1):26‐35. [PUBMED: 16722852 ] - PMC - PubMed
Münter 2006 {published data only}
    1. Münter KC, Beele H, Russell L, Crespi A, Gröchenig E, Basse P, et al. Effect of a sustained silver‐releasing dressing on ulcers with delayed healing: the CONTORP study. Journal of Wound Care 2006;15(5):199‐206. [PUBMED: 16711173] - PubMed
Oleske 1986 {published data only}
    1. Oleske DM, Smith XS, White P, Pottage J, Donovan MI. A randomized controlled trial of two dressing methods for the treatment of low‐grade pressure ulcers. Journal of Enterostomal Therapy 1986;13(3):90‐8. [PUBMED: 3519718] - PubMed
Palao i Domenech 2008 {published data only}
    1. Palao i Domenech R, Romanelli M, Tsiftsis DD, Slonková V, Jortikka A, Johannesen N, et al. Effect of an ibuprofen‐releasing foam dressing on wound pain: a real‐life RCT. Journal of Wound Care 2008;17(8):342, 344‐8. [PUBMED: 18754195] - PubMed
Parish 2008 {published data only}
    1. Parish LC, Dryjski M, Cadden S, Versiva XC Pressure Ulcer Study Group. Prospective clinical study of new adhesive gelling foam dressing in pressure ulcers. International Wound Journal 2008;5(1):60‐7. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00428.x.] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Piatkowski 2012 {published data only}
    1. Piatkowski A, Ulrich D, Seidel D, Abel M, Pallua N, Andriessen A. Randomized, controlled pilot to compare collagen and foam in stagnating pressure ulcers. Journal of Wound Care 2012;21(10):505‐11. [PUBMED: 23103485 ] - PubMed
Reynolds 2004 {published data only}
    1. Reynolds T, Russell L, Deeth M, Jones H, Birchall L. A randomised controlled trial comparing Drawtex with standard dressings for exuding wounds. Journal of Wound Care 2004;14(2):71‐4. [PUBMED: 14999992 ] - PubMed
Romanelli 2009 {published data only}
    1. Romanelli M, Dini V, Polignano R, Bonadeo P, Maggio G. Ibuprofen slow‐release foam dressing reduces wound pain in painful exuding wounds: preliminary findings from an international real‐life study. Journal of Dermatological Treatment 2009;20(1):19‐26. [DOI: 10.1080/09546630802178232.] - DOI - PubMed
Wagstaff 2014 {published data only}
    1. Wagstaff MJ, Driver S, Coghlan P, Greenwood JE. A randomized, controlled trial of negative pressure wound therapy of pressure ulcers via a novel polyurethane foam. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2014;22(2):205‐11. [DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12146] - DOI - PubMed
Zimny 2003 {published data only}
    1. Zimny S, Schatz H, Pfohl U. The effects of applied felted foam on wound healing and healing times in the therapy of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetic Medicine 2003;20(8):622‐5. [PUBMED: 12873288] - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

ISRCTN57842461 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN57842461. To compare the polyurethane foam dressing (hydrocellular) and the hydrocolloid dressing in patients with pressure ulcers (stage II) in primary care. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN5784246 (accessed 11 August 11 2016). [DOI: 10.1186/ISRCTN57842461] - DOI

Additional references

AHRQ 2014
    1. US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Are we ready for this change? Preventing pressure ulcers in hospitals: a toolkit for improving quality of care. www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/pressureulcertoolkit/putool1... (accessed 26 October 2016).
BNF 2016
    1. British Medical Association, British Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Wound management products and elasticated garments. www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/bnf/current/PHP101071‐wound‐management‐prod... (accessed 10 August 2016).
Cardinal 2009
    1. Cardinal M, Eisenbud DE, Armstrong DG, Zelen C, Driver V, Attinger C, et al. Serial surgical debridement: a retrospective study on clinical outcomes in chronic lower extremity wounds. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2009;17(3):306‐11. [PUBMED: 19660037] - PubMed
Chaby 2007
    1. Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, Martel P, Guillaume JC, Meaume S, et al. Dressings for acute and chronic wounds: a systematic review. Archives of Dermatology 2007;143:1297‐304. - PubMed
CRD 2017
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Search strategies. www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/searchstrategies.asp (accessed 21 September 2017).
Dealey 2012
    1. Dealey C, Posnett J, Walker A. The cost of pressure ulcers in the United Kingdom. Journal of Wound Care 2012;21(6):261‐2, 264, 266. - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Gillespie 2012
    1. Gillespie BM, Chaboyer W, Niuewenhoven P, Rickard CM. Drivers and barriers of surgical wound management in a large healthcare organisation: results of an environmental scan. Wound Practice and Research 2012;20(2):90‐202.
Graves 2014
    1. Graves N, Birrell F, Whitby M. Modelling the direct health care costs of chronic wounds in Australia. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association 2014;22(2):20‐4, 26‐33.
Guyatt 2011
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. rating the quality of evidence ‐ study limitations (risk of bias). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:407‐15. [PUBMED: 21247734] - PubMed
Hamilton 2008
    1. Hamilton C. Speculating to accumulate: reducing the cost of wound care by appropriate dressing selection. Journal of Wound Care 2008;17(8):359‐63. - PubMed
Harker 2000
    1. Harker J. Pressure ulcer classification: the Torrance system. Journal of Wound Care 2000;9(6):275‐7. [PUBMED: 11933341] - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, editor(s). Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
House 2011
    1. House S, Giles T, Whitcomb J. Benchmarking to the international pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing 2011;38(3):254‐9. - PubMed
Husereau 2013
    1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) ‐ explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value in Health 2013;16:231‐50. - PubMed
Kirman 2008
    1. Kirman CN, Geibel J. Pressure ulcers and wound care treatment and management. emedicine.medscape.com/article/190115‐treatment (accessed 10 August 2016).
Lahmann 2006
    1. Lahmann N, Halfens R, Dassen T. Pressure ulcers in German nursing homes and acute care hospitals: prevalence, frequency and ulcer characteristics. Ostomy Wound Management 2006;52(2):20‐33. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
Maylor 1997
    1. Maylor ME. Knowledge base and use in the management of pressure sores. Journal of Wound Care 1997;6(5):244‐7. - PubMed
Miles 2013
    1. Miles SJ, Fulbrook P, Nowicki T, Franks C. Decreasing pressure injury prevalence in an Australian general hospital: a 10‐year review. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association 2013;21:148‐56.
Moore 2005
    1. Moore Z. Pressure ulcer grading. Nursing Standard 2005;19:56‐64. - PubMed
Nguyen 2015
    1. Nguyen K‐H, Chaboyer W, Whitty JA. Pressure injury in Australian public hospitals: a cost‐of‐illness study. Australian Health Review 2015;39(3):329‐36. [PUBMED: 25725696 ] - PubMed
NICE 2014
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pressure ulcers: prevention and management. Clinical guideline [CG179]. April 2014. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg179 (accessed 9 October 2017). - PubMed
NICE 2017
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment. Clinical guideline [CG74]. February 2017. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg74 (accessed 9 October 2017).
NPUAP 1989
    1. National Pressure UIcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP). Pressure ulcers prevalence, cost and risk assessment: consensus development conference statement. Decubitus 1989;2(2):24‐8. [PUBMED: 2665781] - PubMed
NPUAP/EPUAP/PPPIA 2014
    1. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance (PPPIA). Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: quick reference guide October 2014. www.npuap.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/08/Updated‐10‐16‐14‐Quick‐Referenc... (accessed 18 May 2016).
Pieper 1995
    1. Pieper B, Mott M. Nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention, staging, and description. Advances in Wound Care 1995;8(3):34, 38, 40 passim. - PubMed
Polit 2010
    1. Polit DF, Gillespie BM. Intention‐to‐treat in randomized controlled trials: recommendations for a total trial strategy. Research in Nursing & Health 2010;33:355‐68. [PUBMED: 20645423] - PubMed
QSB 2006
    1. Quality, Safety Branch (QSB). PUPPS 3 ‐ Pressure ulcer point prevalence survey. Statewide report 2006. www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/researchandreports/pressure‐ul... (accessed 9 October 2017).
Reddy 2008
    1. Reddy M, Gill SS, Kalkar SR, Wu W, Anderson PJ, Rochon PA. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA 2008;300(22):2647‐62. - PubMed
Reid 1994
    1. Reid J, Morison M. Towards a consensus: classification of pressure sores. Journal of Wound Care 1994;3(3):157‐60. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Russo 2003
    1. Russo CA, Elixhauser A. Hospitalizations related to pressure sores, 2003. www.hcup‐us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb3.pdf (accessed 18 May 2016). - PubMed
Schulz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Medicine 2010;7(3):e1000251. [PUBMED: 20352064] - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting Results and Drawing Conculsions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Shanin 2008
    1. Shanin E, Dassen T, Halfens R. Pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence in intensive care patients: a literature review. Nursing in Critical Care 2008;13(2):71‐9. - PubMed
Shemilt 2011
    1. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Byford S, Drummond M, Eisenstein E, Knapp M, et al. Chapter 15: Incorporating economics evidence. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
SIGN 2017
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/search‐filters.html (accessed 9 October 2017).
Smith 2013
    1. Smith ME, Totten A, Hickman DH, Fu R, Wasson N, Rahman B, et al. Pressure ulcer treatment strategies: a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;159(1):39‐50. [PUBMED: 23817703 ] - PubMed
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D (editors). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Tierney 2007
    1. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007;7(8):16. [PUBMED: 17555582 ] - PMC - PubMed
Vanderwee 2007
    1. Vanderwee K, Clark M, Dealey C, Gunningberg L, Defloor T. Pressure ulcer prevalence in Europe: a pilot study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2007;13:227‐35. - PubMed
VanGilder 2009
    1. VanGilder C, Amlung S, Harrison P, Meyer S. Results of the 2008–2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence ™ Survey and a 3‐year, acute care, unit‐specific analysis. Ostomy Wound Management 2009;55:39‐45. - PubMed
VQC 2004
    1. Victorian Quality Commission (VQC). State‐wide pressure ulcer point prevalence survey 2 report 2004. health.vic.gov.au/pu_basics/resources/vcq_pupps_2.pdf (accessed 18 May 2016).
Westby 2017
    1. Westby MJ, Dumville JC, Soares MO, Stubbs N, Norman G. Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011947.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Winter 1962
    1. Winter GD. Formation of the scab and the rate of epithelization of superficial wounds in the skin of the young domestic pig. Nature 1962;193:293‐4. - PubMed
Winter 1963a
    1. Winter GD, Scales JT. Effect of air drying and dressings on the surface of a wound. Nature 1963;197:91‐2. - PubMed
Winter 1963b
    1. Winter GD. Effect of air exposure and occlusion on experimental human skin wounds. Nature 1963;200:378‐9. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Walker 2014
    1. Walker RM, Keogh SJ, Higgins NS, Whitty JA, Thalib L, Gillespie BM, et al. Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011332] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources