Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards

Deficiencies in reporting inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions in pressure injuries: a systematic methodological review

Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.

A multimodal, comprehensive characterization of a cutaneous wound model in healthy volunteers

Development of pharmacological interventions for wound treatment is challenging due to both poorly understood wound healing mechanisms and heterogeneous patient populations. A standardized and well-characterized wound healing model in healthy volunteers is needed to aid in-depth pharmacodynamic and efficacy assessments of novel compounds. The current study aims to objectively and comprehensively characterize skin punch biopsy-induced wounds in healthy volunteers with an integrated, multimodal test battery. Eighteen (18) healthy male and female volunteers received three biopsies on the lower back, which were left to heal without intervention. The wound healing process was characterized using a battery of multimodal, non-invasive methods as well as histology and qPCR analysis in re-excised skin punch biopsies. Biophysical and clinical imaging read-outs returned to baseline values in 28 days. Optical coherence tomography detected cutaneous differences throughout the wound healing progression. qPCR analysis showed involvement of proteins, quantified as mRNA fold increase, in one or more healing phases. All modalities used in the study were able to detect differences over time. Using multidimensional data visualization, we were able to create a distinction between wound healing phases. Clinical and histopathological scoring were concordant with non-invasive imaging read-outs. This well-characterized wound healing model in healthy volunteers will be a valuable tool for the standardized testing of novel wound healing treatments.

Benefits of sucrose octasulfate (TLC-NOSF) dressings in the treatment of chronic wounds: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Management of chronic wounds remains one of the major challenges for health professionals and patients. An evidence-based decision is important to ensure that patients are receiving the best treatment proven to reduce healing time and improve outcomes, including economic benefits and patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Due to recent restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including closure of wound care centres within hospitals and a drop in patient volume, chronic wound management needs simple-to-use dressings which are still effective and evidence-based solutions. This systematic review was conducted to identify the clinical evidence available on a sucrose octasulfate dressing (TLC-NOSF, UrgoStart dressing range, Laboratoires Urgo, France) to explore its efficacy in the management of chronic wounds, particularly lower limb ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and pressure ulcers.

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was conducted based on the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) to retrieve publications of different levels of evidence in order to evaluate outcomes of the use of TLC-NOSF dressings.

RESULTS

A total of 21 publications of different levels, ranging from double-blind randomised control trials to case reports, involving over 12,000 patients, were identified through PubMed, with a further eight publications through Google Scholar and two publications through Cochrane Library. A total of seven results were omitted due to the lack of relevance or repetition.

CONCLUSION

All the evidence provided suggest that these dressings provide clinicians with an evidence-based option for the management of chronic wounds; that the TLC-NOSF dressings are beneficial in promoting the healing process, reducing healing times, enhancing patients' HRQoL, and in allowing a more cost-effective procedure.

Topical treatment for facial burns

BACKGROUND

Burn injuries are an important health problem. They occur frequently in the head and neck region. The face is the area central to a person's identity that provides our most expressive means of communication. Topical interventions are currently the cornerstone of treatment of burns to the face.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical interventions on wound healing in people with facial burns of any depth.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical treatment for facial burns were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this first update, we included 12 RCTs, comprising 507 participants. Most trials included adults admitted to specialised burn centres after recent burn injuries. Topical agents included antimicrobial agents (silver sulphadiazine (SSD), Aquacel-Ag, cerium-sulphadiazine, gentamicin cream, mafenide acetate cream, bacitracin), non-antimicrobial agents (Moist Exposed Burn Ointment (MEBO), saline-soaked dressings, skin substitutes (including bioengineered skin substitute (TransCyte), allograft, and xenograft (porcine Xenoderm), and miscellaneous treatments (growth hormone therapy, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor hydrogel (rhGMCS)), enzymatic debridement, and cream with Helix Aspersa extract). Almost all the evidence included in this review was assessed as low or very low-certainty, often because of high risk of bias due to unclear randomisation procedures (i.e. sequence generation and allocation concealment); lack of blinding of participants, providers and sometimes outcome assessors; and imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates or both, often in single studies. Topical antimicrobial agents versus topical non-antimicrobial agents There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between antimicrobial agents and non-antimicrobial agents (SSD and MEBO) in time to complete wound healing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.85, 1 study, 39 participants). Topical antimicrobial agents may make little or no difference to the proportion of wounds completely healed compared with topical non-antimicrobial agents (comparison SSD and MEBO, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29; 1 study, 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in wound infection (comparison topical antimicrobial agent (Aquacel-Ag) and MEBO; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported change in wound surface area over time or partial wound healing. There is low-certainty evidence for the secondary outcomes scar quality and patient satisfaction. Two studies assessed pain but it was incompletely reported. Topical antimicrobial agents versus other topical antimicrobial agents It is uncertain whether topical antimicrobial agents make any difference in effects as the evidence is low to very low-certainty. For primary outcomes, there is low-certainty evidence for time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing (comparison SSD versus cerium SSD: mean difference (MD) -7.10 days, 95% CI -16.43 to 2.23; 1 study, 142 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence regarding whether topical antimicrobial agents make a difference to wound infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; 1 study, 15 participants). There is low to very low-certainty evidence for the proportion of facial burns requiring surgery, pain, scar quality, adverse effects and length of hospital stay. Skin substitutes versus topical antimicrobial agents There is low-certainty evidence that a skin substitute may slightly reduce time to partial (i.e. greater than 90%) wound healing, compared with a non-specified antibacterial agent (MD -6.00 days, 95% CI -8.69 to -3.31; 1 study, 34 participants). We are uncertain whether skin substitutes in general make any other difference in effects as the evidence is very low certainty. Outcomes included wound infection, pain, scar quality, adverse effects of treatment and length of hospital stay. Single studies showed contrasting low-certainty evidence. A bioengineered skin substitute may slightly reduce procedural pain (MD -4.00, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.95; 34 participants) and background pain (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.95; 34 participants) compared with an unspecified antimicrobial agent. In contrast, a biological dressing (porcine Xenoderm) might slightly increase pain in superficial burns (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; 15 participants (30 wounds)) as well as deep partial thickness burns (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.66; 10 participants (20 wounds)), compared with antimicrobial agents (Physiotulle Ag (Coloplast)). Miscellaneous treatments versus miscellaneous treatments Single studies show low to very low-certainty effects of interventions. Low-certainty evidence shows that MEBO may slightly reduce time to complete wound healing compared with saline soaked dressing (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -3.32 to -0.08; 40 participants). In addition, a cream containing Helix Aspersa may slightly increase the proportion of wounds completely healed at 14 days compared with MEBO (RR 4.77, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.15; 43 participants). We are uncertain whether any miscellaneous treatment in the included studies makes a difference in effects for the outcomes wound infection, scar quality, pain and patient satisfaction as the evidence is low to very low-certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is mainly low to very low-certainty evidence on the effects of any topical intervention on wound healing in people with facial burns. The number of RCTs in burn care is growing, but the body of evidence is still hampered due to an insufficient number of studies that follow appropriate evidence-based standards of conducting and reporting RCTs.

Negative pressure wound therapy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials from 2000 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) proposes to provide better wound healing than standard wound management. Evidence quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) varies.

METHODS

We included participants with any kind of wounds and commercial as well as the homemade NPWT system. Comparators were any other wound dressing including variant NPWTs. We included RCTs randomizing patients or wounds in parallel or crossover designs. We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library on January 03, 2018. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane and appropriateness of clinical endpoints according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

RESULTS

We included 93 RCTs originating in 30 countries, 70 studies on open wounds and 23 studies on closed wounds. With respect to random sequence generation, we judged an unclear or high risk of bias in 50% (47 of 93) studies. With respect to allocation concealment, we judged an unclear or high risk of bias in 90% (84 of 93). We identified 41% (38 of 93) studies that based their conclusion on not appropriate endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

High risk of bias concerning random sequence generation and allocation concealment limited the credibility of the majority of 93 included RCTs on NPWT. A low risk of bias can and should be achieved with both items, and we recommend to align future RCTs to Cochrane. Many primary clinical endpoints were deemed not valid for making inferences on the efficacy of NPWT. We recommend using patient-centered endpoints as requested by the FDA and suggested in the present systematic review.

Randomised controlled trials as part of clinical care: A seven-step routinisation framework proposal

Evidence translation in wound care relies on the need for evidence generation. Clinical practice may generate evidence only if evidence-generating research projects, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), became routinised in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to identify optimal trial-related practices to routinise trial-related activities in Melbourne-located wound clinics as reported by clinicians and researchers. We conducted a secondary analysis of the available data on how to routinise RCTs in clinical care, with a focus on enablers and suggestions provided by the participants during face-to-face and telephone interviews. Data were obtained from a qualitative observational study nested within a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on clinical effectiveness of aspirin as an adjunct to compression therapy in healing chronic venous leg ulcers (ASPiVLU). We developed a seven-step Routinisation of Trials in Clinical Care Framework. These steps include: (1) pre-trial clinical site assessment, (2) optimising pre-recruitment arrangements, (3) developing and updating trial-related skills, (4) embedding RCT recruitment as part of routine clinical care, (5) promoting teamwork and trial-related collaboration, (6) addressing trial-related financial issues, and (7) communicating trial results to clinicians.

Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in intervention efficacy evaluation. However, suboptimal recruitment affects completion and the power of a therapeutic trial in detecting treatment differences. We conducted a systematic review to examine the barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on chronic wound treatment. Review registration was under PROSPERO 2017:CRD42017062438. We conducted a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid Cochrane Library, Ovid EMBASE, and Ovid PsycINFO databases in June 2017 for chronic wound treatment randomised controlled trials. Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials or qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the 24 randomised controlled trials, 21 were assessed as low quality in relation to recruitment, and 3 were assessed as high quality. All 27 studies reported barriers to recruitment in chronic wound randomised controlled trials. The reported barriers to recruitment were: study-related, patient-related, clinician-related, health system-related, and/or operational-related. No study reported recruitment enablers. To enhance randomised controlled trial recruitment, we propose the need for improved integration of research and clinical practice. To alleviate the problems arising from inadequate reporting of randomised controlled trials, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement could include an additional item on recruitment barriers. This approach will allow for increased awareness of the potential barriers to recruitment for Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in both wound management and other health care research.

The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: A systematic survey

Despite several publications on venous ulcers, there is still a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support certain treatments for patients with this disorder. Well-designed research questions using the PICOT (Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome; Time-frame) format in RCTs can improve the quality of research. The objectives of this study were to assess how the PICOT format is used to frame research questions in RCTs published on venous ulcer disease and to determine the factors associated with better adherence to the PICOT format. We conducted a systematic survey of RCTs on venous ulcers published in the PubMed database between January 2009 and May 2016. All RCTs published in English addressing therapeutic interventions for venous ulcer disease in human subjects were included. We examined whether the five elements of the PICOT format were used in formulating the research question and scored them between 0 and 5. The primary outcome of this systematic survey was the percentage of studies that adequately reported all five PICOT elements. Eighty-five (85) RCTs were included with median PICOT score of 3 (IQR = 1.5). Four elements of PICOT were present in 28 reports (32.9%) and only 2 RCTS (2.3%) reported all the PICOT elements. Population and intervention were often appropriately described, in (70/85) 82.4% and (83/85) 97.6% of the studies, respectively; however, comparison intervention and outcome were presented in only (53/85) 62.3% and (48/85) 56.5% of studies, respectively. Very few RCTs (7.1%; 6/85) reported the study time frame. No journal or RCT characteristics were found to be significantly associated with better reporting. Use of the PICOT format to frame research questions in RCTs published on venous ulcers is suboptimal, and our study reinforces the importance of framing a good research question to improve the design of trials and quality of evidence in venous ulcer disease.

Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are used widely in surgical practice. As protocols are multidisciplinary with multiple components, it is difficult to compare and contrast reports. The present study examined compliance and transferability to clinical practice among ER publications related to colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched for current colorectal ER manuscripts. Each publication was assessed for the number of ER elements, whether the element was explained sufficiently so that it could be transferred to clinical practice, and compliance with the ER element.

RESULTS

Some 50 publications met the reporting criteria for inclusion. A total of 22 ER elements were described. The median number of elements included in each publication was 9, and the median number of included patients was 130. The elements most commonly included in ER pathways were early postoperative diet advancement (49, 98 per cent) and early mobilization (47, 94 per cent). Early diet advancement was sufficiently explained in 43 (86 per cent) of the 50 publications, but only 22 (45 per cent) of 49 listing the variable reported compliance. The explanation for early mobilization was satisfactory in 41 (82 per cent) of the 50 publications, although only 14 (30 per cent) of 47 listing the variable reported compliance. Other ER elements had similar rates of explanation and compliance. The most frequently analysed outcome measures were morbidity (49, 98 per cent), length of stay (47, 94 per cent) and mortality (45, 90 per cent).

CONCLUSION

The current standard of reporting is frequently incomplete. To transfer knowledge and facilitate implementation of pathways that demonstrate improvements in perioperative care and recovery, a consistent structured reporting platform is needed.