Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews

BMC Medicine volume 13, Article number: 89 (2015) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Numerous, often multi-faceted regimens are available for treating complex wounds, yet the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature. We aimed to identify effective interventions to treat complex wounds through an overview of systematic reviews.

Methods

MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 until October 26, 2012), EMBASE (OVID interface, 1947 until October 26, 2012), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 10 of 12, 2012) were searched on October 26, 2012. Systematic reviews that examined adults receiving care for their complex wounds were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool.

Results

Overall, 99 systematic reviews were included after screening 6,200 titles and abstracts and 422 full-texts; 54 were systematic reviews with a meta-analysis (including data on over 54,000 patients) and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis. Overall, 44% of included reviews were rated as being of high quality (AMSTAR score ≥8). Based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥8, promising interventions for complex wounds were identified. These included bandages or stockings (multi-layer, high compression) and wound cleansing for venous leg ulcers; four-layer bandages for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers; biologics, ultrasound, and hydrogel dressings for diabetic leg/foot ulcers; hydrocolloid dressings, electrotherapy, air-fluidized beds, and alternate foam mattresses for pressure ulcers; and silver dressings and ultrasound for unspecified mixed complex wounds. For surgical wound infections, topical negative pressure and vacuum-assisted closure were promising interventions, but this was based on evidence from moderate to low quality systematic reviews.

Conclusions

Numerous interventions can be utilized for patients with varying types of complex wounds, yet few treatments were consistently effective across all outcomes throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results to tailor effective treatment according to type of complex wound. Network meta-analysis will be of benefit to decision-makers, as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons and ranking of the effectiveness of all interventions.

Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3

Peer Review reports

Background

Chronic wounds are those that have not progressed through the ordered process of healing to yield a functional result [1]. Recently, the terminology for chronic wounds has changed. The preferred term to refer to a chronic wound is a “complex wound” [2]. One of the following characteristics is necessary for a wound to be classified as being complex: i) has not healed in 3 months, ii) infection is present, iii) compromised viability of superficial tissues, necrosis, or circulation impairment, and iv) association with systemic pathologies, impairing normal healing [2]. The main types of complex wounds include diabetic leg/foot ulcers, pressure ulcers [3], chronic venous ulcers, infected wounds [1,4,5], and those related to vasculitis and immunosuppressive therapy that have not healed using simple care [2].

Complex wounds are a significant burden on society. It has been estimated that complex wounds cost the healthcare system $10 billion annually in North America alone [6]. These estimates often fail to capture indirect costs, including patient/caregiver frustration, economic loss, and decreased quality of life.

Healthcare providers and patients have numerous regimens available for treating wounds [7], including dressings, wound cleansing agents, skin replacement therapy, biologic agents, stockings, nutritional supplementation, complementary and alternative medicine, bandages, and surgery, to name a few. Furthermore, wound care is often multi-faceted, and several interventions may be used concurrently. Some of these interventions have been examined in overviews of Cochrane reviews [8,9]. As the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature, we sought to elucidate optimal treatment strategies for complex wounds through an overview of all available systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews.

Methods

Protocol

A protocol for our overview of reviews was developed using the Cochrane Handbook for overviews of reviews [10]. The draft protocol was circulated for feedback from systematic review methodologists, policy-makers, and clinicians with expertise in wound care. It was revised as necessary and the final version is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Eligibility criteria

We included systematic reviews that focused on interventions to treat complex wounds (including venous and arterial ulcers due to chronic illness, diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, and infected surgical wounds) amongst adults aged 18 years and older. We used the definition for a systematic review put forth by the Cochrane Collaboration, “A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made” [10].

A list of the 14 different intervention categories can be found in Additional file 1. All comparators, such as other wound care interventions, no treatment, placebo, and usual care were eligible for inclusion. To be included, a systematic review also had to report on our outcomes of interest as identified by decision-makers, including healing (e.g., number of ulcers healed, improvement of ulcers, and time to ulcer healing) or admission to hospital (including readmissions). Systematic reviews that were published or unpublished and conducted at any point in time were included. Due to resource limitations, only systematic reviews written in English were included. However, authors were contacted to obtain translations of reviews written in languages other than English.

Literature search

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted from inception until October 2012 across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search terms included both medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text terms related to wound care interventions. Literature searches were conducted by an experienced librarian (LP) on October 26, 2012. Using validated search filters, the search strategies were limited to human participants, adults, and systematic reviews. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching for systematic review protocols in the PROSPERO database [11], contacting authors of conference proceeding abstracts for their unpublished data, and scanning the reference lists of the included systematic reviews.

The search strategy was peer reviewed by another expert librarian on our team (EC) using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist [12] and amended, as necessary. The final search strategy for the MEDLINE database is presented in Additional file 2. The literature search was limited to adults, reviews, and economic studies. The latter limitation was employed to identify cost-effectiveness analyses for a second paper that examines the cost-effectiveness of complex wounds [Tricco et al., unpublished paper submitted to BMC Medicine]. The MEDLINE search was modified for the other two databases, as necessary. Search strategies for the EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are available from the corresponding author, upon request.

Screening

Prior to commencing the screening process, a calibration exercise was conducted to ensure reliability in correctly selecting articles for inclusion. This exercise entailed screening a random sample of 50 of the included titles and abstracts by all team members, independently. The eligibility criteria were modified, as necessary, to optimize clarity. Subsequently, reviewer pairs (ACT, JA, AH, AV, PAK, CW, EC, LP) independently screened the remainder of the search results for inclusion using a pre-defined relevance criteria form for all levels of screening (e.g., title and abstract, full-text review of potentially relevant articles). Discrepancies were resolved by discussion or the involvement of a third reviewer.

Data items

Data abstraction forms were pilot-tested by all team members independently on a random sample of five articles. The data abstraction forms were revised after this exercise, as necessary. Subsequently, reviewer pairs (ACT, JA, AH, AV, PAK, CW, LP, WH) independently read each article and abstracted relevant data. Differences in abstraction were resolved by discussion or the involvement of a third reviewer. Data items included study characteristics (e.g., number of studies identified, type of study designs included, interventions and comparators examined), patient characteristics (e.g., clinical population, wound types, age category), and outcome results (e.g., healing, hospitalizations).

Methodological quality appraisal

The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews were appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool [13]. The reliability and validity of this tool has been established [14]. Items include the use of a protocol, study selection by two reviewers, comprehensive literature search, inclusion of unpublished material, list of included and excluded studies, reporting of study characteristics, quality appraisal, appropriate pooling of data methods, assessment of publication bias, and statement of conflicts of interest. Each included systematic review was appraised by two team members (ACT, JA, AH, AV, PAK, CW, EC, LP) and conflicts were resolved by discussion or the involvement of a third reviewer.

Synthesis

Literature search results and the abstracted data were summarized descriptively. An in-depth comparison of included systematic reviews was compiled and depicted in tables and figures. Conclusion statements for systematic reviews without a meta-analysis were categorized by two reviewers (ACT, JA, AH, AV, PAK, CW, LP, WH), independently, using a pre-existing framework, as follows: positive (authors stated that there is evidence of effectiveness); neutral (no evidence of effectiveness or they reported no opinion); negative (authors advised against the use of the intervention or it was not recommended); or indeterminate (authors stated that there is insufficient evidence or that more research is required) [15]. Conflicts were resolved through discussion and a third reviewer (ACT) verified the categorizations to ensure accuracy.

Results

Literature search

The literature search resulted in 6,200 titles and abstracts, of which 5,778 were excluded for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). Of the 422 full-texts retrieved and screened in duplicate, 309 articles were excluded. Ninety-nine systematic reviews of wound care interventions were included in this overview of systematic reviews; 54 were systematic reviews with meta-analysis results [16-67] and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [68-112]. In addition, 14 companion reports were included [21,113-125], the majority of which were Cochrane updates.

Figure 1
figure 1

Study flow. Details the flow of information through the different phases of the review. The flow maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for their exclusion.

Full size image

Systematic review characteristics

The reviews were conducted between 1997 and 2012, with 28% taking place after 2011 (Table 1; Additional file 3). The first authors of the systematic reviews were predominantly based in Europe (66%), North America (19%), and Australia or New Zealand (7%). The number of studies included in each review ranged from 0 to 130, with 80% including between 2 and 30 studies. Ninety-three systematic reviews included randomized clinical trials. Five systematic reviews were unpublished [43,58,83,104,106].

Table 1 Summary characteristics of included systematic reviews
Full size table

Study and patient characteristics

Thirty-four systematic reviews provided information about the patient population under study (Table 1; Additional file 3) and 21% included patients with diabetes. Six categories of complex wounds were examined: venous leg ulcers (31%), diabetic foot/leg ulcers (23%), pressure ulcers (17%), mixed arterial/venous leg wounds (14%), unspecified mixed complex wounds (9%), and infected surgical wounds (6%). The five most common interventions were adjuvant therapies (20%), dressings (16%), biologic agents (10%), other topical agents (9%), and other oral agents (7%). The five most common comparators were usual care (46%), dressings (25%), bandages (6%), support surfaces (5%), and other topical agents (4%). The duration of treatment ranged from 2 days to 160 months and the duration of follow-up ranged from 2 days to 195 months across the included studies in the systematic reviews.

A total of 327 treatment comparisons were included in the 99 systematic reviews. As such, only statistically significant results from systematic reviews with a meta-analysis are reported in our outcome results section below in the text. Specific results for all treatment comparisons can be found in Table 2. To facilitate the summary and comparison of a large number of reviews, we have presented the review results using positive, negative, or neutral conclusions (Tables 2,3,4,5,6,7); however, we have also included the statistical effect sizes from each of the included meta-analyses in Additional file 4.

Table 2 Summary of evidence for venous ulcer management
Full size table
Table 3 Summary of evidence for mixed arterial/venous ulcer management
Full size table
Table 4 Summary of evidence for diabetic ulcer management
Full size table
Table 5 Summary of evidence for pressure ulcer management
Full size table
Table 6 Summary of evidence for mixed complex wounds management
Full size table
Table 7 Summary of evidence for infected surgical wounds management
Full size table

Methodological quality appraisal

Almost half (45%) of the systematic reviews were deemed high quality with an AMSTAR score ≥8 out of a possible 11 (Figure 2; Additional file 5). Many systematic reviews did not provide a list of excluded studies from screening potentially relevant full-text articles (60%) or address publication bias (65%). Conversely, 95% searched at least two electronic databases, 91% provided the characteristics of included studies, and 89% adequately used the quality appraisal results in formulating conclusions. Half of the systematic reviews including a meta-analysis had an AMSTAR score ≥8, and 40% of the systematic reviews without a meta-analysis had an AMSTAR score ≥8.

Figure 2
figure 2

AMSTAR methodological quality results. NA, Not applicable. 1. A priori design. 2. Duplicate selection/DA. 3. Literature search. 4. Publication status. 5. List of studies. 6. Study characteristics. 7. Quality assessed. 8. Quality used. 9. Methods appropriate. 10. Publication bias assessed. 11. Conflicts stated.

Full size image

Outcome results for venous leg ulcers

Wound area/size reduction

Two systematic reviews including two meta-analyses examined venous leg ulcer area/size reduction [56] (Table 2; Additional file 4), one of which had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [36]. Topical cadexomer iodine [36] and oral micronized purified flavonoid fraction [56] were more effective than placebo in each meta-analysis comparing these interventions.

Time to healing or rate of healing

Five systematic reviews including six meta-analyses [34,39,44,45,56] and one systematic review without a meta-analysis [77] (Table 2; Additional files 4 and 6) examined the time to healing for venous leg ulcers. Two of these had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [44,45].

Two systematic reviews (AMSTAR score ≥8) including two meta-analyses found that four-layer bandages were more effective than short stretch bandages [44] and compression systems [45]. One systematic review including two meta-analyses found conflicting results for bandages versus stockings [39]. Oral micronized purified flavonoid fraction was more effective than placebo in one meta-analysis [56].

Ulcer healing

Five systematic reviews including eight meta-analyses [29,30,39,51,62] and five systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [72,73,77,89,103] (Table 2; Additional files 4 and 6) examined venous leg ulcer healing. Four of these had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [30,62,73,89].

Elastic high compression was more effective than multi-layer inelastic compression in a systematic review (AMSTAR score ≥8) with a meta-analysis [62] and stockings were more effective than bandages in another meta-analysis [39]. Tissue engineered skin was more effective than dressings in one meta-analysis [51], topical granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor was more effective than placebo in another meta-analysis [29], and oral pentoxifylline was more effective with (or without) compression than placebo in another meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [30].

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

Nineteen systematic reviews with 39 meta-analyses [21,23,25,30,31,36,40,45,46,48,52,53,55,58,62,64-67] and two systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [77,102] (Table 2; Additional files 4 and 6) examined the proportion of patients with healed venous leg ulcers. Twelve of these had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [23,25,30,31,36,40,45,52,55,62,64,67].

Multi-layered, high compression bandages reduced ulcers compared with single layer bandages in two meta-analyses [62,67]. Elastic high compression was more effective than inelastic bandages [45] and versus inelastic compression bandages (AMSTAR score ≥8) [67] in two meta-analyses. Intermittent pneumatic compression was more effective than compression stockings or Unna’s boot in one meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [67] and high compression stockings were more effective than compression bandages in another meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [62]. Two-layer stockings were more effective than short-stretch bandages in another meta-analysis [44]. Ultrasound was more effective than no ultrasound in one meta-analysis [65] and cleaning wounds with cadexomer iodine plus compression therapy was more effective than standard care in another meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [36]. Skin replacement therapy was more effective than standard compression therapy in one meta-analysis [46] and oral pentoxifylline with (or without) compression was more effective than placebo in two meta-analyses (AMSTAR score ≥8) [30]. Periulcer injection with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor was more effective than control in another meta-analysis [53].

Outcome results for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers

Wound area/size reduction

Two systematic reviews including three meta-analyses examined wound area/size reduction for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers [34,65] (Table 3; Additional file 4). None had an AMSTAR score ≥8. One meta-analysis found topical silver and silver dressings more effective than placebo or conservative wound care or non-silver therapies [34] and another that ultrasound was more effective than standard treatment or placebo [65].

Time to healing or rate of healing

Four systematic reviews including five meta-analyses examined the time to healing for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers [45,49,55,56] (Table 3; Additional file 4). Two had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [45,55]. One meta-analysis found topical negative pressure more effective than conventional therapy [49], a second found oral micronized purified flavonoid more effective than placebo or standard compression [56], and a third found that four-layer bandage was more effective than compression systems [45].

Ulcer healing

Six systematic reviews without a meta-analysis examined ulcer healing for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers [80,82-84,101,110] (Table 3; Additional file 6). Two had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [80,84]. Details of these study results can be found in Additional file 6.

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

Two systematic reviews including three meta-analyses examined the proportion of patients with healed mixed arterial/venous wounds [49,50] (Table 3; Additional file 4). None had an AMSTAR score ≥8. Topical negative pressure was more effective than conventional therapy in one meta-analysis [49].

Outcome results for diabetic foot/leg ulcers

The following outcome results were only reported in systematic reviews without meta-analysis: wound area/size reduction (n = 2) [79,88] and time to healing or rate of healing (n = 3) [79,88,95]. Details of these study results can be found in Additional file 6.

Ulcer healing

Three systematic reviews including four meta-analyses [24,35,57] and 10 systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [69,70,74,79,81,86,88,93,98,112] (Table 4; Additional files 4 and 6) examined healing improvements of diabetic foot/leg ulcers. Three had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [24,74,98].

One meta-analysis found that subcutaneous or intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor plus oral or intravenous antibiotics was more effective than control (high quality) [24]. Another meta-analysis found that Chinese herbal medicine (see Table 4 and Additional file 4 for the exact preparation) plus unspecified standard therapy was more effective than standard therapy alone [35].

No healing improvement or non-healed wounds

Three systematic reviews including five meta-analyses [22,33,35] examined no healing improvement for diabetic wounds (Table 4; Additional file 4). Two of these had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [22,33].

Hyaluronic acid derivative was more effective than standard care in one meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [22]. Low frequency low intensity noncontact ultrasound was more effective than sharps debridement in two meta-analyses (AMSTAR score ≥8) [33] and Chinese herbal medicine (see Additional file 4 for the exact preparation) plus unspecified standard therapy was more effective than standard therapy alone in another meta-analysis [35].

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

Fifteen systematic reviews including 18 meta-analyses [17-20,22,24,27,28,35,38,46,47,57-59] (Table 4; Additional file 4) examined the proportion of patients with healed diabetic foot and leg ulcers. Eight of these had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [17,18,20,22,24,27,28,59].

Hydrogel dressings were more effective than basic wound dressings, basic contact dressings, and gauze in three meta-analyses (two with an AMSTAR score ≥8) [17,19,28]. Artificial skin grafts were more effective than usual care in one meta-analysis [58] and skin replacement therapy was more effective than usual care in another [47]. Chinese herbal medicine (see Additional file 4 for the exact preparation) plus unspecified standard therapy was more effective than standard therapy alone in a meta-analysis [35] and subcutaneous or intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was more effective than usual care in another (AMSTAR score ≥8) [24]. Finally, a meta-analysis found platelet-rich plasma more effective than control [38].

Outcome results for pressure ulcers

The following outcome results were only reported in systematic reviews without meta-analysis: wound area/size reduction (n = 3) [78,87,94] and time to healing or rate of healing (n = 3) [68,78,94]. Details of these study results can be found in Additional file 6.

Ulcer healing

Five systematic reviews reporting on eight meta-analyses [16,43,60,64,62] and 11 systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [75,76,78,85,90,92,94,97,99,104,106] (Table 5; Additional files 4 and 6) focused on pressure ulcer healing. Of these, eight had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [16,60,62,64,75,76,90,106].

Hydrocolloid dressings were more effective than usual care in a meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [64], electrotherapy was more effective than sham therapy in another meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [62], and air-fluidized beds were more effective than standard care or conventional mattresses in three meta-analyses [43,60,125]. In addition, alternate foam mattresses were more effective than standard foam mattresses in a meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [60].

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

Three systematic reviews including 25 meta-analyses [43,54,62] and two systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [78,94] (Table 5; Additional files 4 and 6) examined the proportion of patients with healed pressure ulcers. Only one had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [62].

One meta-analysis found that hydrocolloid dressings were more effective than traditional dressings and another that hydrogel dressings were more effective than hydrocolloid dressings [43]. Different brands of alternating pressure mattresses were more effective than others in a meta-analysis [43].

Outcome results for mixed complex wounds (unspecified)

Wound area/size reduction

Four systematic reviews including five meta-analyses examined the area/size reduction of mixed complex wounds (unspecified) [21,32,41,42] (Table 6; Additional file 4). Two had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [41,42]. Silver-impregnated dressings were more effective than dressings not containing silver in a meta-analysis (AMSTAR score ≥8) [41]. Topical negative pressure was more effective than standard wound care in another meta-analysis [32].

Ulcer healing

One systematic review including a meta-analysis [63] and five systematic reviews without a meta-analysis [91,100,105,107,111] (Table 6; Additional files 4 and 6) examined ulcer healing for mixed complex wounds. Three had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [91,107,111].

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

Five systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses [21,55,58,61,62] (Table 6; Additional file 4) examined the proportion of patients with healed complex wounds. Two had an AMSTAR score ≥8 [55,62]. Hydrocolloid dressings were more effective than conventional dressings in a meta-analysis [61] and ultrasound was more effective than no ultrasound in another (AMSTAR score ≥8) [62]. In addition, artificial skin grafts were more effective than standard care in three meta-analyses [58].

Outcome results for surgical wound infections

The following outcome results were only reported in systematic reviews without meta-analysis: wound area/size reduction (n = 2) [71,108], time to healing or rate of healing (n = 5) [68,71,96,108,109], and ulcer healing (n = 2) [71,108]. Details of these study results can be found in Additional file 6.

Proportion of patients with healed wounds

One systematic review including a meta-analysis (AMSTAR <8) found that topical negative pressure was more effective than standard treatment [37] (Table 7; Additional file 4).

Length of hospital stay

One systematic review and meta-analysis (AMSTAR <8) found that vacuum-assisted closure was more effective than conventional therapy for decreasing the length of hospital stay associated with surgical wound infections [26] (Table 7; Additional file 4).

Discussion

We conducted a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews to identify optimal interventions for complex wounds. Data from 99 systematic reviews were scrutinized and interventions that are likely optimal were identified. These reviews examined numerous treatments and comparators and used different outcomes to assess effectiveness. Frequently, treatments considered as the intervention in one review were administered to the control in another. This renders the interpretation of our findings difficult.

We found that some interventions are likely to be effective based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥8. For venous leg ulcers, four-layer bandages [44,45], elastic high compression [62], oral pentoxifylline with (or without) compression [30], compression bandages (multi-layer, elastic) [62,67], high compression [62] or multi-layer stockings [45], and wound cleansing with cadexomer iodine plus compression therapy [36] were effective compared with usual care. Only four-layer bandages [45] were effective in healing mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers versus compression systems. For diabetic foot/leg ulcers, subcutaneous or intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [24], hyaluronic acid derivative [22], low frequency, low intensity noncontact ultrasound [33], and hydrogel dressings [17,28] were effective interventions compared with usual care. For pressure ulcers, hydrocolloid dressings [64], electrotherapy [62], air-fluidized beds [60], and alternate foam mattresses [60] were effective compared with usual care. For mixed complex wounds, silver dressings [41] and ultrasound [62] were found to be more effective than no treatment. Finally, effective treatments were not identified for surgical wound infections amongst those with an AMSTAR score ≥8 including a meta-analysis. It is important to note that many of these interventions had conflicting results versus other comparators or were based on meta-analyses including few studies with a small number of patients. As such, these results should be interpreted with caution.

There are some limitations to our overview of systematic reviews. An inherent drawback of including systematic reviews is that the studies included in each of the reviews will have been published well before the search date. The inclusion of close to 100 systematic reviews, however, provides a breadth of information that is unlikely to significantly change with the inclusion of recently published studies. Although we appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews, we did not assess the risk of bias in the included studies in the systematic reviews. This is because a risk of bias tool for systematic reviews currently does not exist, but we are aware of one being developed by the Cochrane Collaboration [126]. Furthermore, we only included systematic reviews that were disseminated in English due to resource constraints. However, we attempted contacting authors to receive English translations. In addition, although we included five unpublished systematic reviews, we attempted to obtain unpublished data from a further 10 systematic reviews that were available as conference abstracts, yet we didn’t receive a response from the review authors. As such, our findings are likely representative of published literature written in English. Since we did not conduct a meta-analysis, we were unable to formally test for publication bias.

Our results suggest the need for a network meta-analysis [127], given the numerous interventions and comparators available and examined across the literature. Policy-makers focus their decisions at the systems level so require information on all treatment comparisons available. Patients and their healthcare providers need to know if the treatment they are prescribed or recommending is the most effective and safest compared with all others available. Conducting a high-quality, comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis is the only feasible tool available to examine multiple treatment comparisons. As the healthcare system shifts towards more complex problems and a resource-scarce environment, systematic reviews and meta-analysis of only one treatment comparison become obsolete. This is indeed the case for complex wound care interventions; despite the availability of almost 100 systematic reviews, optimal management is still unclear. Network meta-analysis also allows the ranking of all treatments for each effectiveness and safety outcome examined, making it a particularly attractive tool for decision-makers.

Almost half of the included systematic reviews were rated as being of high methodological quality according to the AMSTAR tool [13]. Consistent methodological shortcomings include not using a protocol to guide their conduct, not including a list of excluded studies at the full-text level of screening, and not addressing or referring to publication bias. Results reported in systematic reviews with higher scores on the AMSTAR tool are likely the most reliable. Furthermore, some studies only gave wound care patients two days of treatment or followed patients for two days. The utility of these short studies is questionable and studies of longer duration are recommended.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our results confirm that there are numerous interventions that can be utilized for patients with complex wounds. However, few treatments were consistently effective throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results as a guide towards tailoring effective treatment according to type of wound. Planned future analysis of this data through network meta-analysis will further assist decision-makers as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons as well as the ranking of the effectiveness of all available wound care interventions.

Abbreviations

AMSTAR:

Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews

References

  1. Akagi I, Furukawa K, Miyashita M, Kiyama T, Matsuda A, Nomura T, et al. Surgical wound management made easier and more cost-effective. Oncol Lett. 2012;4:97–100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferreira MC, Tuma Jr P, Carvalho VF, Kamamoto F. Complex wounds. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2006;61:571–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stansby G, Avital L, Jones K, Marsden G, Guideline Development Group. Prevention and management of pressure ulcers in primary and secondary care: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2014;348:g2592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Adderley U, Smith R. Topical agents and dressings for fungating wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2, CD003948.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abidia A, Laden G, Kuhan G, Johnson BF, Wilkinson AR, Renwick PM, et al. The role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in ischaemic diabetic lower extremity ulcers: a double-blind randomised-controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003;25:513–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Apelqvist J, Ragnarson TG. Cavity foot ulcers in diabetic patients: a comparative study of cadexomer iodine ointment and standard treatment. An economic analysis alongside a clinical trial. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996;76:231–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harding KG, Morris HL, Patel GK. Science, medicine and the future: healing chronic wounds. BMJ. 2002;324:160–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brolmann FE, Ubbink DT, Nelson EA, Munte K, van der Horst CM, Vermeulen H. Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1172–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ubbink DT, Santema TB, Stoekenbroek RM. Systemic wound care: a meta-review of cochrane systematic reviews. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:99–111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  11. National Institute for Health Research (NIH). PROSPERO database http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero/.

  12. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:944–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2:e1350.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:380–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stratton RJ, Ek AC, Engfer M, Moore Z, Rigby P, Wolfe R, et al. Enteral nutritional support in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2005;4:422–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dumville JC, Deshpande S, O’Meara S, Speak K. Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2, CD009099.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dumville JC, O’Meara S, Deshpande S, Speak K. Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2, CD009110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Edwards J, Stapley S. Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1, CD003556.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kranke P, Bennett MH, Martyn-St James M, Schnabel A, Debus SE. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4, CD004123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martinez-Zapata MJ, Marti-Carvajal AJ, Sola I, Exposito JA, Bolibar I, Rodriguez L, et al. Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10, CD006899.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Voigt J, Driver VR. Hyaluronic acid derivatives and their healing effect on burns, epithelial surgical wounds, and chronic wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Wound Repair Regen. 2012;20:317–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilkinson EA. Oral zinc for arterial and venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8, CD001273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cruciani M, Lipsky BA, Mengoli C, de Lalla F. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;5, CD006810.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cullum N, Al-Kurdi D, Bell-Syer SEM. Therapeutic ultrasound for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12, CD001180.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Damiani G, Pinnarelli L, Sommella L, Tocco MP, Marvulli M, Magrini P, et al. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy for patients with infected sternal wounds: a meta-analysis of current evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:1119–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dumville JC, Deshpande S, O’Meara S, Speak K. Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9, CD009111.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dumville JC, O’Meara S, Deshpande S, Speak K. Hydrogel dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9, CD009101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hu X, Sun H, Han C, Wang X, Yu W. Topically applied rhGM-CSF for the wound healing: a systematic review. Burns. 2011;37:729–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jull AB, Arroll B, Parag V, Waters J. Pentoxifylline for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3, CD001733.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson EA, Mani R, Thomas K, Vowden K. Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2, CD001899.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Suissa D, Danino A, Nikolis A. Negative-pressure therapy versus standard wound care: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:498e–503e.

  33. Voigt J, Wendelken M, Driver V, Alvarez OM. Low-frequency ultrasound (20–40 kHz) as an adjunctive therapy for chronic wound healing: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2011;10:190–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carter MJ, Tingley-Kelley K, Warriner 3rd RA. Silver treatments and silver-impregnated dressings for the healing of leg wounds and ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;63:668–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen M, Zheng H, Yin LP, Xie CG. Is oral administration of Chinese herbal medicine effective and safe as an adjunctive therapy for managing diabetic foot ulcers? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Altern Complement Med. 2010;16:889–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Meara S, Al-Kurdi D, Ologun Y, Ovington LG. Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1, CD003557.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pan A, Cauda R, Concia E, Esposito S, Sganga G, Stefani S, et al. Consensus document on controversial issues in the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14:S39–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Villela DL, Santos VL. Evidence on the use of platelet-rich plasma for diabetic ulcer: a systematic review. Growth Factors. 2010;28:111–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Amsler F, Willenberg T, Blattler W. In search of optimal compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a meta-analysis of studies comparing diverse [corrected] bandages with specifically designed stockings. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:668–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jull AB, Rodgers A, Walker N. Honey as a topical treatment for wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4, CD005083.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lo SF, Chang CJ, Hu WY, Hayter M, Chang YT. The effectiveness of silver-releasing dressings in the management of non-healing chronic wounds: a meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:716–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Martinez-Zapata MJ, Marti-Carvajal A, Sola I, Bolibar I, Angel Exposito J, Rodriguez L, et al. Efficacy and safety of the use of autologous plasma rich in platelets for tissue regeneration: a systematic review. Transfusion (Paris). 2009;49:44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Health Quality Ontario. Management of chronic pressure ulcers: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009;9(3):1–203.

  44. O’Meara S, Tierney J, Cullum N, Bland JM, Franks PJ, Mole T, et al. Four layer bandage compared with short stretch bandage for venous leg ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with data from individual patients. BMJ. 2009;338:b1344.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. O’Meara S, Cullum NA, Nelson EA. Compression for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1, CD000265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Barber C, Watt A, Pham C, Humphreys K, Penington A, Mutimer K, et al. Influence of bioengineered skin substitutes on diabetic foot ulcer and venous leg ulcer outcomes. J Wound Care. 2008;17:517–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Blozik E, Scherer M. Skin replacement therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:693–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Flemming K, Cullum NA. Laser therapy for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1, CD001182.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sadat U, Chang G, Noorani A, Walsh SR, Hayes PD, Varty K. Efficacy of TNP on lower limb wounds: a meta-analysis. J Wound Care. 2008;17:45–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chambers H, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Silver treatments for leg ulcers: a systematic review. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15:165–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Jones JE, Nelson EA. Skin grafting for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2, CD001737.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Palfreyman S, Nelson EA, Michaels JA. Dressings for venous leg ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;335:244.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. O’Donnell Jr TF, Lau J. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of wound dressings for chronic venous ulcer. J Vasc Surg. 2006;44:1118–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sari BA, Flemming K, Cullum NA, Wollina U. Therapeutic ultrasound for pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2, CD001275.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bouza C, Munoz A, Amate JM. Efficacy of modern dressings in the treatment of leg ulcers: a systematic review. Wound Repair Regen. 2005;13:218–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Coleridge-Smith P, Lok C, Ramelet AA. Venous leg ulcer: a meta-analysis of adjunctive therapy with micronized purified flavonoid fraction. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;30:198–208.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cruciani M, Lipsky BA, Mengoli C, de Lalla F. Are granulocyte colony-stimulating factors beneficial in treating diabetic foot infections? A meta-analysis Diabetes Care. 2005;28:454–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ho C, Tran K, Hux M, Sibbald G, Campbell K. Artificial skin grafts in chronic wound care: a meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and a review of cost-effectiveness. In: Technology Report no 52. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2005.

  59. Roeckl-Wiedmann I, Bennett M, Kranke P. Systematic review of hyperbaric oxygen in the management of chronic wounds. Br J Surg. 2005;92:24–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cullum N, Deeks J, Sheldon TA, Song F, Fletcher AW. Beds, mattresses and cushions for pressure sore prevention and treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2, CD001735.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Singh A, Halder S, Menon GR, Chumber S, Misra MC, Sharma LK, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on hydrocolloid occlusive dressing versus conventional gauze dressing in the healing of chronic wounds. Asian J Surg. 2004;27:326–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–221.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lucas C, Stanborough RW, Freeman CL, De Haan RJ. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy on wound healing in human subjects: a systematic review. Lasers Med Sci. 2000;15:84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Bradley M, Cullum N, Nelson EA, Petticrew M, Sheldon T, Torgerson D. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2). Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Johannsen F, Gam AN, Karlsmark T. Ultrasound therapy in chronic leg ulceration: a meta-analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 1998;6:121–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Palfreyman SJ, Lochiel R, Michaels JA. A systematic review of compression therapy for venous leg ulcers. Vasc Med. 1998;3:301–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fletcher A, Cullum N, Sheldon TA. A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. BMJ. 1997;315:576–80.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Dat AD, Poon F, Pham KB, Doust J. Aloe vera for treating acute and chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2, CD008762.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hinchliffe RJ, Andros G, Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Friederichs S, Lammer J, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of revascularization of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral arterial disease. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28:179–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Peters EJ, Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Embil JM, Lavery LA, Senneville E, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in the management of infection in the diabetic foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28:142–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate DA, Westerbos SJ. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4, CD003554.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Zarchi K, Jemec GB. The efficacy of maggot debridement therapy-a review of comparative clinical trials. Int Wound J. 2012;9:469–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Aziz Z, Cullum NA, Flemming K. Electromagnetic therapy for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3, CD002933.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lima AF, Costa LB, Silva JL, Maia MB, Ximenes EC. Interventions for wound healing among diabetic patients infected with Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review. Sao Paulo Med J. 2011;129:165–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. McGinnis E, Stubbs N. Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9, CD005485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. McInnes E, Dumville JC, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE. Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12, CD009490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nelson EA. Venous leg ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid. 2011;2011:pii:1902.

  78. Reddy M. Pressure ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid. 2011;2011:pii:1901.

  79. Hunt DL. Diabetes: foot ulcers and amputations. BMJ Clin Evid. 2009;2009:pii:0602.

  80. Vermeulen H, van Hattem JM, Storm-Versloot MN, Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ. Topical silver for treating infected wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1, CD005486.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Xie X, McGregor M, Dendukuri N. The clinical effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2010;19:490–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. McGaughey H, Dhamija S, Oliver L, Porter-Armstrong A, McDonough S. Pulsed electromagnetic energy in management of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Phys Ther Rev. 2009;14:132–46.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Health Quality Ontario. Community-based care for chronic wound management: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009, 9(18):1–24.

  84. Nelson EA, Bradley MD. Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3, CD001836.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ramundo J, Gray M. Collagenase for enzymatic debridement: a systematic review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009;36:S4–S11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Roukis TS, Schade VL. Percutaneous flexor tenotomy for treatment of neuropathic toe ulceration secondary to toe contracture in persons with diabetes: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009;48:684–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Heyneman A, Beele H, Vanderwee K, Defloor T. A systematic review of the use of hydrocolloids in the treatment of pressure ulcers. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17:1164–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hinchliffe RJ, Valk GD, Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Bakker K, Game FL, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24:S119–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Howard DP, Howard A, Kothari A, Wales L, Guest M, Davies AH. The role of superficial venous surgery in the management of venous ulcers: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;36:458–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Langer G, Knerr A, Kuss O, Behrens J, Schlomer GJ. Nutritional interventions for preventing and treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3, CD003216.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Lo SF, Hayter M, Chang CJ, Hu WY, Lee LL. A systematic review of silver-releasing dressings in the management of infected chronic wounds. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17:1973–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Moore Z, Cowman S. A systematic review of wound cleansing for pressure ulcers. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17:1963–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Noble-Bell G, Forbes A. A systematic review of the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in the management of diabetes foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 2008;5:233–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Reddy M, Gill SS, Kalkar SR, Wu W, Anderson PJ, Rochon PA. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;300:2647–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ, Evans D, Land L, Vermeulen H. Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2, CD001898.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ, Nelson EA, Vermeulen H. A systematic review of topical negative pressure therapy for acute and chronic wounds. Br J Surg. 2008;95:685–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Van den Boogaard M, Laat E, Spauwen P, Schoonhoven L. The effectiveness of topical negative pressure in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a literature review. Eur J Plast Surg. 2008;31:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nelson EA, O’Meara S, Craig D, Iglesias C, Golder S, Dalton J, et al. A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii-iv–ix-x. 1–221.

  99. Bouza C, Saz Z, Munoz A, Amate JM. Efficacy of advanced dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. J Wound Care. 2005;14:193–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Schuren J, Becker A, Sibbald RG. A liquid film-forming acrylate for peri-wound protection: a systematic review and meta-analysis (3 M Cavilon no-sting barrier film). Int Wound J. 2005;2:230–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Mwipatayi BP, Angel D, Norrish J, Hamilton MJ, Scott A, Sieunarine K. The use of honey in chronic leg ulcers: a literature review. Primary Intention. 2004;12:107–8. 110–112.

  102. TenBrook Jr JA, Iafrati MD, O’Donnell Jr TF, Wolf MP, Hoffman SN, Pauker SG, et al. Systematic review of outcomes after surgical management of venous disease incorporating subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:583–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Berliner E, Ozbilgin B, Zarin DA. A systematic review of pneumatic compression for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency and venous ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:539–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Pham CT, Middleton P, Maddern G. Vacuum-assisted closure for the management of wounds: an accelerated systematic review. North Adelaide, S. Australia, Australia. Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures (ASERNIP) - Surgical. ASERNIP-S Report; 37. http://www.surgeons.org/media/19301/VACaccelreview1203.pdf.

  105. Wang C, Schwaitzberg S, Berliner E, Zarin DA, Lau J. Hyperbaric oxygen for treating wounds: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Surg. 2003;138:272–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI). Air-fluidized beds used for treatment of pressure ulcers in the home environment. https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Air-Fluidized_Beds_Used_for_Treatment_of_Pressure_Ulcers_in_the_Home_Environment.pdf

  107. Evans D, Land L. Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds: a systematic review. Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54:238–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Lewis R, Whiting P, ter Riet G, O’Meara S, Glanville J. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–131.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Moore OA, Smith LA, Campbell F, Seers K, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Systematic review of the use of honey as a wound dressing. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2001;1:2.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. O’Meara SM, Cullum NA, Majid M, Sheldon TA. Systematic review of antimicrobial agents used for chronic wounds. Br J Surg. 2001;88:4–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T. The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:iii–iv. 1–78.

  112. Mason J, O’Keeffe C, Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Young R, Booth A. A systematic review of foot ulcer in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. II: treatment Diabet Med. 1999;16:889–909.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate DA. Systematic review of dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Br J Surg. 2005;92:665–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Semin-Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate D. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004:CD003554.

  115. Wilkinson E, Hawke C. Zinc and chronic leg ulcers: a systematic review of oral zinc in the treatment of chronic leg ulcers. J Tissue Viability. 1999;9:21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Wilkinson EA, Hawke CI. Does oral zinc aid the healing of chronic leg ulcers? A systematic literature review. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1556–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Aziz Z, Flemming K, Cullum NA, Olyaee MA. Electromagnetic therapy for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11, CD002930.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Jull AB, Arroll B, Parag V, Waters J. Pentoxifylline for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3, CD001733.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Nelson EA, Jones J. Venous leg ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid. 2008;2008:pii:1902.

  120. Hunt D. Diabetes: foot ulcers and amputations. BMJ Clin Evid. 2009; 2009.

  121. O’Meara S, Al-Kurdi D, Ovington LG. Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1, CD003557.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Nelson EA, Bradley MD. Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4, CD001836.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Ramundo J, Gray M. Enzymatic wound debridement. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35:273–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. O’Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–237.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Cullum N, Petherick E. Pressure ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid. 2008;2008:pii:1901.

  126. University of Bristol. ROBIS tool. http://www.robis-tool.info/.

  127. Catala-Lopez F, Tobias A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int. 2014;34:1489–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Toronto Central Local Health Integrated Network. ACT is funded by a Canadian Institutes for Health Research/Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (CIHR/DSEN) New Investigator Award on Knowledge Synthesis Methodology. SES is funded by a CIHR tier 1 Research Chair in Knowledge Translation.

We thank Dr. James Mahoney and Chris Shumway from the Toronto Central Local Health Integrated Network who provided invaluable feedback on our original report. As well, we thank Geetha Sanmugalingham for screening some citations and full-text articles, John Ivory for screening some citations, Judy Tran for obtaining the potentially relevant full-text articles, and Wasifa Zarin and Inthuja Selvaratnam for helping to format the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Andrea C Tricco, Jesmin Antony, Afshin Vafaei, Paul A Khan, Alana Harrington, Elise Cogo, Charlotte Wilson, Laure Perrier, Wing Hui & Sharon E Straus

  2. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada

    Andrea C Tricco

  3. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A1, Canada

    Sharon E Straus

Authors
  1. Andrea C Tricco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesmin Antony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Afshin Vafaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul A Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alana Harrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elise Cogo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Charlotte Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Laure Perrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wing Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sharon E Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon E Straus.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

ACT conceived the study, helped obtain funding for the study, screened citations, abstracted data, appraised quality, analyzed the data, interpreted the results, and wrote the manuscript. JA coordinated the study, screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality, cleaned the data, generated tables and figures, and helped write the manuscript. AH, AV, PAK, CW screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality and edited the manuscript. AH also located full-texts of conference abstracts, and scanned reference lists. EC screened citations and full-text articles, peer-reviewed the literature search, and edited the manuscript. LP screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality and conducted the literature search. WH abstracted data, created data tables, formatted the paper, and edited the manuscript. SES conceived the study, designed the study, obtained the funding, interpreted the results, and edited the manuscript. All authors interpreted the results, read, edited, and approved the final paper. SES accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to all of the data, and controlled the decision to publish. SES affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned and registered have been explained.

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Classification of wound care interventions and comparators. Lists the interventions and the corresponding comparators for each wound care treatment/comparator identified in our review.

Additional file 2:

MEDLINE search strategy. Lists MEDLINE search terms.

Additional file 3:

Systematic review characteristics. Lists the characteristics of studies included in the overview of reviews.

Additional file 4:

Meta-analysis results. Provides relevant findings from the included reviews with a meta-analysis.

Additional file 5:

AMSTAR results for each systematic review. Results of the AMSTAR quality assessment for included reviews.

Additional file 6:

Non-meta-analysis results. Provides relevant findings from the included reviews without a meta-analysis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Vafaei, A. et al. Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Med 13, 89 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us