External validity of randomized controlled trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration: A systematic review

Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis

In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre‐ and post‐study power calculations were made. The step‐up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre‐2013 studies, and 2013/post‐2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5–77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non‐significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base.

Rationale for participation in venous leg ulcer clinical research: Patient interview study

Recruitment to wound care clinical trials is challenging and a better understanding of patient decisions to participate has the potential to influence recruitment success. We conducted 31 semi-structured telephone interviews of patients who participated in the Aspirin in Venous Leg Ulcer (ASPiVLU) randomised controlled trail (RCT) or ASPiVLU cohort study. Data were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. We identified four key themes: (a) "I participated to help others"; (b) "I participated in research to thank those who cared for me"; (c) "I participated to receive better care"; and (d) "I participated to have a say on what works." These themes became basic elements for the Rationale for Research Participation Framework that we have developed to improve the participant recruitment process for clinical trials in wound care.

The profile of patients with venous leg ulcers: A systematic review and global perspective

BACKGROUND

A holistic profile that includes demographic, medical history and wound characteristics of individuals with venous leg ulceration is lacking. Lack of such a profile negatively impacts the ability to develop interventions to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the profile of the patient population with venous leg ulceration from published observational (non-interventional) studies and to identify gaps in the knowledge base for future research in this area.

METHODS

A systematic review of observational studies that included more than 50 patients, from any world region, of any age and in any care setting.

RESULTS

twenty studies, involving 3395 patients, from all world regions met our criteria. Demographic characteristics were well reported and showed a female to male ratio of 1.2:1, average age of 47-65 years, high levels of co-morbidities including hypertension (53-71%) and diabetes (16-20%), and only one study reporting ethnicity. When reported, approximately 4-30% had high levels of depression. The average wound size was 18.6-43.39 cm²; mean wound duration was 13.8-65.5 months, mean number of recurrences was four. No study reported on demographic factors plus medical history plus wound characteristics together.

CONCLUSION

a comprehensive, holistic profile of the population with VLU is lacking. There is a critical need for more comprehensive profiling to enable the development of targeted interventions to improve outcomes.

First-Line Interactive Wound Dressing Update: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence

Wound management is a significant and growing issue worldwide. Knowledge of dressing products and clinical expertise in dressing selection are two major components in holistic wound management to ensure evidence-based wound care. With expanding global market of dressing products, there is need to update clinician knowledge of dressing properties in wound care. Optimal wound management depends on accurate patient assessment, wound diagnosis, clinicians’ knowledge of the wound healing process and properties of wound dressings. We conducted a comprehensive review of the physical properties of wound dressing products, including the advantages and disadvantages, indications and contraindications and effectiveness of first-line interactive/bioactive dressing groups commonly used in clinical practice. These include semipermeable films, foams, hydroactives, alginates, hydrofibers, hydrocolloids, and hydrogels. In making decisions regarding dressing product selection, clinicians need to ensure a holistic assessment of patient and wound etiology, and understand dressing properties when making clinical decisions using wound management guidelines to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This review has highlighted there is lack of high quality evidence and the need for future well designed trials.

Adverse event reporting and trial registration in venous leg ulcer trials published since the 2001 CONSORT statement revision: A systematic review

AIM

To be in accord with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, all important adverse events in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be reported, as well as trial registration. Neither concern has been investigated in venous leg ulcer trials. We therefore aimed to quantify and explore compliance with adverse event reporting and trials registration in RCTs that reported interventions for treating venous leg ulceration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for studies reported between 2001 and 2017. Included studies must have been described as randomised controlled trials evaluating any intervention in a VLU population. Data was then extracted by one author into a standard form and checked by a second author.

RESULTS

We screened 3100 titles and identified 204 trials involving pharmaceuticals (82), medicated and non-medicated devices (102), organisational (5) or other interventions (15) published in 76 journals. Eighty-four trials reported adverse events (41.2%), while 18 reported no events occurred (8.8%) and 78 did not report adverse events (38.2%). Types of adverse events reported included all-cause (20.1%), ulcer-related only (38.2%), treatment-related only (11.3%) and serious adverse events only (1.0%). Only 38 trials were registered (18.6%). Trial registration was associated with reporting of any adverse events (Odds Ratio 3.0, 95%CI 1.1-7.9), as was the trial being a pharmaceutical trial (Odds Ratio 2.9, 95%CI 1.5-5.7) or a multicentre trial (Odds Ratio 4.2, 95%CI 2.2-8.1).

CONCLUSION

Adverse event reporting in VLU trials is variable with about one third of trials not reporting on adverse events at all. Trials registration is a the modifiable factor associated with better reporting of adverse events. Journal editors could explore how they can promote trials registration to enhance better reporting of harms in VLU trials.