4.5 Article

Comparison of polyurethane foam dressing and hydrocolloid dressing in patients with pressure ulcers A randomized controlled trial protocol

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024165

关键词

hydrocolloid dressing; polyurethane foam dressing; pressure ulcer; protocol

资金

  1. Medical and health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province [2020KY772]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study protocol compares the effects of hydrocolloid dressing and polyurethane foam dressing on PU patients, focusing on healing rates and cost-effectiveness. The study has strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, providing evidence-based support for optimal dressing selection for PU patients.
Background: We conduct this randomized controlled trial protocol for the comparison of the influence of the hydrocolloid dressing and polyurethane foam dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs) patients. Methods: This study will be implemented from February 2021 to February 2022 at Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital. The experiment was granted through the Research Ethics Committee of Hangzhou Geriatric Hospital (C5259033). Criteria for inclusion: patients older than 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with PU. If the patient suffers from more than a PU, only the ulcer with largest diameter is evaluated. Criteria for exclusion: (1) hypersensitivity or allergy to the substances in dressings; (2) patients with diabetic foot or venous ulcers; and (3) serious disease. The major result is rate of PU healing or ulcer epithelialization tissue. The secondary result is the changes in the area of ulcer in cm and cost-effectiveness. The analysis of all the data are conducted with the software of IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results: Table 1 will show the comparison of clinical outcomes between 2 groups. Conclusion: This study can develop an evidence-based protocol to identify optimal dressings for patients with PUs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据