Cochrane · systematic review · CD012132

Organisation of health services for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

Joyce, P, Moore, ZEH, Christie, J · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library

WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 7.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 13 · 92.9%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Transmural care versus usual follow‐up care for preventing pressure ulcers

Population: people with spinal cord injury receiving rehabilitation treatment for the first time
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Pressure ulcer incidence rate
Transmural care vs usual follow‐up care
RR 0.93 [0.53, 1.64]1 study · 62 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events: readmission to clinical rehabilitation
Transmural care vs usual follow‐up care
RR 2 [0.19, 20.93]1 study · 62 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Hospital‐in‐the‐home versus hospital admission for preventing pressure ulcers

Population: people requiring admission to hospital
3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Pressure ulcer incidence rate
Hospital‐in‐the‐home vs hospital admission
RR 0.32 [0.03, 2.98]1 study · 100 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events: death
Hospital‐in‐the‐home vs hospital admission
RR 0.72 [0.17, 3.06]1 study · 100 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events: hospital readmission;
Hospital‐in‐the‐home vs hospital admission
RR 0.58 [0.15, 2.28]1 study · 100 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) versus usual care for preventing and treating pressure ulcers

Population: people with pressure ulcers residing in long‐term‐care facilities
6 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Pressure ulcer incidence rate
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
HR 1.12 [0.74, 1.68]1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Number of pressure ulcers healed
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
RR 1.69 [1, 2.87]1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in pressure ulcer surface area
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
no estimate extracted1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Time to complete healing
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
HR 1.48 [0.79, 2.78]1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events: hospital admission
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
no estimate extracted1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events: ED visits
Enhanced multidisciplinary team (EMDT) vs usual care
no estimate extracted1 study · 161 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Multidisciplinary wound care versus usual care for treating pressure ulcers

Population: people who were resident in nursing homes
3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Number of pressure ulcers healed;
Multidisciplinary wound care vs usual care
RR 1.18 [0.98, 1.42]1 study · 176 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Time to complete healing
Multidisciplinary wound care vs usual care
HR 1.73 [1.2, 2.5]1 study · 176 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Adverse events
Multidisciplinary wound care vs usual care
no estimate extractedNRNo studies