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
. 2025 Mar-Apr;52(2):104-111.
doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000001154. Epub 2025 Mar 20.

Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review

Affiliations

Updating Wound Care Algorithms: A Systematic, Focused Review

Lia van Rijswijk et al. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2025 Mar-Apr.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. 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
    1. 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
    1. 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.
    1. 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
    1. 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