Preventive effect of extra virgin olive oil on pressure injury development: A randomized controlled trial in Turkey

Efficacy and Safety of Topical Application of Olive Oil for Preventing Pressure Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose was to identify and summarize the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the topical application of olive oil for preventing pressure ulcers (PUs). We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients at risk of developing PUs, testing the topical application of olive oil versus other products for PU prevention. We assessed the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. Four RCTs met the eligibility criteria. All studies were judged at a low risk of bias overall. The meta-analysis showed that the clinical efficacy of olive oil for prevention occurs by reducing the incidence of PUs (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.79, I² = 0%); with no differences in adverse effects, it may be associated with a shorter development time of PUs and shorter hospital stays. The certainty of the evidence assessed by the GRADE approach was moderate and low. The topical application of olive oil is effective and safe in reducing the incidence of PUs compared to other treatments. These findings could provide new insights into olive oil as a preventive and alternative treatment for PUs as it is accessible and inexpensive compared to other products.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination.

OBJECTIVE

Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data.

RESULTS

Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I² = 36%), but included studies were limited by bias and age. Following per protocol meta-analyses, only two intervention types demonstrated a significant effect: support surfaces (active versus other comparison [risk ratio = 0.54, p = 0.005, I² = 43%] and standard surfaces [risk ratio = 0.31, p < 0.001, I² = 0%]; and reactive versus other comparison surfaces [risk ratio = 0.53, p = 0.03, I² = 64%]) and heel protection devices versus standard care (risk ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001, I² = 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.