4.5 Review

Effectiveness and safety of different dressings therapy for pressure injuries A protocol for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 100, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023520

Keywords

dressing; network meta-analysis; Pressure injuries

Funding

  1. Gansu Province Youth Science and Technology Fund Project [17JR5RA235]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different dressings on the treatment of pressure injuries and use network meta-analysis to conduct the research. The study is ongoing and the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
Background: Pressure injuries, also known as pressure ulcers, are local skin injuries. Once a pressure injury occurs, clinical treatment is relatively difficult, the treatment cycle is long, and the treatment cost is high, which brings heavy burdens to patients and society. Therefore, look for a reliable pressure injuries treatment method is 1 of the focus of clinical nursing workers. Objective: At present, there are many kinds of dressings to treat pressure injuries, and there is no uniform conclusion about which dressing is the most effective. Therefore, we systematically evaluate the effects of different dressings on the treatment of pressure injuries. Methods: We systematically searched the Chinese and English databases: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP, Wan Fang. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation were carried out by 2 researchers, and finally, use R software to carry out network meta-analysis. Results: This study is ongoing and the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not applicable, since this is an overview based on published articles. Protocol registration number: INPLASY2020100087.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available