Publication
Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: a systematic review
| dc.contributor.author | Schwarzer, Saskia | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martinez, Jose Lazaro | |
| dc.contributor.author | Killeen, Amanda | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alves, Paulo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gledhill, Andrea | |
| dc.contributor.author | Nygren, Erik | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lavery, Lawrence A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Malone, Matthew | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-10-08T15:59:24Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-10-08T15:59:24Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-10 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case–control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/iwj.70053 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.eid | 85205605396 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1742-4801 | |
| dc.identifier.pmc | PMC11449527 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 39362798 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/46908 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Chronic wounds | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Clinical outcomes | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | DACC-coated dressings | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Hard to heal wounds | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Infection management | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: a systematic review | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 10 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | International Wound Journal | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 21 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |