4.3 Review

Use of Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose/Collagen Matrix in Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review

期刊

ADVANCES IN SKIN & WOUND CARE
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 66-71

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000527297.95688.76

关键词

collagen; diabetic foot ulcer; oxidized regenerated cellulose; meta-analysis; methodology; randomized controlled trials; wound healing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Diabetic wounds that do not heal completely usually exhibit inflammatory markers, increased protease activity, and reduced levels of growth factors and cell count. A systematic review was performed to determine whether there is enough evidence to support the use of an oxidized regenerated cellulose/collagen matrix (ORC+C) to treat diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Study authors analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ORC+C dressings for the treatment of DFUs. A literature search was conducted for all available reports of relevant studies published in journals indexed in PubMed, LILACS, and SciELO databases. There were no restrictions based on date of publication. A population-intervention-comparison-outcome framework was built on MeSH terms and keywords. Two independent researchers analyzed all articles for data collection and used the Cochrane Collaboration tool for risk-of-bias assessment. RESULTS: At first, 316 related studies were located in the databases. After evaluating these studies for methodological similarities, only 3 were considered eligible for the review. One RCT was considered at high risk of bias. Results from this meta-analysis of 2 studies showed no significant improvement in wound healing rates of DFUs when ORC+C was compared with standard wound care. CONCLUSIONS: Because of several methodology flaws in the reviewed studies, these results suggest that there is currently no research evidence to suggest that the use of ORC+C improves wound healing rates of DFUs. Additional research with high-quality RCTs focused on diabetic ulcers is necessary.

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

4.3
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