Letter: evidence-based wound care in the UK: a response to David Leaper's editorial in International Wound Journal April 2009 6 (2)

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards

In wound care research, available high-level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high-level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step-by-step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound-specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta-analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.

Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care

Background

Decisions on local and systemic wound treatment vary among surgeons and are frequently based on expert opinion. The aim of this meta-review was to compile best available evidence from systematic reviews in order to formulate conclusions to support evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.

Methods

All Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), published by the Cochrane Wounds and Peripheral Vascular Diseases Groups, and that investigated therapeutic and preventive interventions, were searched in the Cochrane Database up to June 2011. Two investigators independently categorized each intervention into five levels of evidence of effect, based on size and homogeneity, and the effect size of the outcomes.

Results

After screening 149 CSRs, 44 relevant reviews were included. These contained 109 evidence-based conclusions: 30 on venous ulcers, 30 on acute wounds, 15 on pressure ulcers, 14 on diabetic ulcers, 12 on arterial ulcers and eight on miscellaneous chronic wounds. Strong conclusions could be drawn regarding the effectiveness of: therapeutic ultrasonography, mattresses, cleansing methods, closure of surgical wounds, honey, antibiotic prophylaxis, compression, lidocaine–prilocaine cream, skin grafting, antiseptics, pentoxifylline, debridement, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, prostanoids and spinal cord stimulation.

Conclusion

For some wound care interventions, robust evidence exists upon which clinical decisions should be based.

Do stakeholders in wound care prefer evidence-based wound care products? A survey in the Netherlands

For several wound products compelling evidence is available on their effectiveness, for example, from systematic reviews. The process of buying, prescribing and applying wound materials involve many stakeholders, who may not be aware of this evidence, although this is essential for uniform and optimum treatment choice. In this survey, we determined the general awareness and use of evidence, based on (Cochrane) systematic reviews, for wound products in open wounds and burns among wound care stakeholders, including doctors, nurses, buyers, pharmacologists and manufacturers. We included 262 stakeholders. Doctors preferred conventional antiseptics (e.g. iodine), while specialised nurses and manufacturers favoured popular products (e.g. silver). Most stakeholders considered silver-containing products as evidence-based effective antiseptics. These were mostly used by specialised nurses (47/57; 82%), although only few of them (9/55; 16%) thought using silver is evidence-based. For burns, silver sulfadiazine and hydrofibre were most popular. The majority of professionals considered using silver sulfadiazine to be evidence-based, which contradicts scientific results. Awareness and use of the Cochrane Library was lower among nurses than among doctors (P < 0.001). Two thirds of the manufacturers were unaware of, or never used, the Cochrane Library. Available compelling evidence in wound care is not equally internalised by stakeholders, which is required to ensure evidence-based decision making.