Cochrane · systematic review · CD013570
Hydrogel dressings for donor sites of split‐thickness skin grafts
Younis, AS, Abdelmonem, IM, Gadullah, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · 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
15
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 40%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 9 · 60%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
Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings versus other types of dressings
Population: children with skin graft donor sites
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to complete wound healing (re‐epithelialisation) (days) Measured using photographs Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Donor site pain Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health‐related quality of life Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wound infection Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wound complications: scarring Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 57 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wound complications: scarring Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wound complications: itching Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wound complications: itching Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Summary of findings 1. Amorphous hydrogel dressings vs other types of dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 101 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings versus OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings
Population: adults with skin graft donor sites
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to complete wound healing of skin graft donor sites (days) Documented using a digital camera + standardised measuring scale and assessed by 2 independent observers Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | MD 0.4 [0.28, 0.52] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Donor site pain Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Wound infection (bacterial colonisation) Measured using: contact cultures Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Wound complications Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Summary of findings 2. Octenidine‐dihydrochloride (OCT) hydrogel dressings vs OCT‐free placebo hydrogel dressings | RR 0.58 [0.06, 5.89] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |