Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review
- PMID: 40136100
- DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000001154
Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to update the underlying evidence base for basic wound care in the Solutions Wound Care Algorithms and revise this resource as needed.
Methods: The 14 major algorithm goals, guidelines, and outcomes of patient care and 34 detailed qualifying assessment and management statements/steps were reconstructed to encompass 21 qualifying statements/steps and aligned with their most recent (2013) levels of evidence. Next, a systematic, focused review of the literature was conducted to update the evidence levels using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy.
Search strategy: An English language search of CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) electronic databases was conducted for the years 2015-2023. For each wound type, the following search terms were used: meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial, clinical practice guideline, clinical trial, and wound care/healing and dressings. Publications not focused on the patient population or qualifying statements were excluded.
Findings: The search retrieved 59 elements that met the predetermined criteria for analysis and leveling. All qualifying statements and steps remain evidence-based. Higher quality evidence became available for nutritional status assessment, exercise to reduce risk factors for various types of lower extremity ulcers, using tap water to cleanse wounds; that delayed wound healing may be a sign of infection, and that silver-containing dressings are effective when used appropriately. No basic patient and wound care steps have the highest level of evidence (level 1) and strength of recommendation (A).
Conclusion: Compared to previous updates, we found fewer clinical trials indicating a need for research to improve evidence levels for various steps of basic wound assessment and care processes.
Copyright © 2025 by the Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society.
References
-
- Hartka T, Gancayco C, McMurry T, Robson M, Weaver A. Accuracy of algorithms to predict injury severity in older adults for trauma triage. Traffic Inj Prev. 2019;20(Supp sup2):S81–S87. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1688795. - DOI
-
- Cunha JB, Dutra AA, Salome GM. Elaboration of an algorithm for wound evaluation and treatment. ESTIMA, Braz J Enterostomal Ther. 2018;16(2):e2018.11. doi:10.30886/estimav16524. - DOI
-
- Beitz JM, van Rijswijk L. A cross-sectional study to validate wound care algorithms for use by registered nurses. Ostomy Wound Management. 2010;56(4):46-59.
-
- Eskes AM, Storm-Versloot MN, Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT. Do stakeholders in wound care prefer evidence-based wound care products? A survey in the Netherlands. Int Wound J. 2012;9(6):624-632. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481x.2011.00926.x. - DOI
-
- Stremitzer S, Wild T, Hoelzen Bein T. How precise is the evaluation of chronic wounds by health care professionals? Int Wound J. 2007;4(2):156-161. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00334.x. - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
