Efficacy of different types of dressings on pressure injuries: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractAimTo investigate the effectiveness of different dressings on pressure injuries and screen the dressings for efficacy.DesignSystematic review and network meta‐analysis.MethodsArticles published from several electronic databases and other resources were selected. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of selected studies.ResultsTwenty‐five studies that contained data on moist dressings (hydrocolloidal dressing, foam dressing, silver ion dressing, biological wound dressing, hydrogel dressing, polymeric membrane dressing) and sterile gauze dressings (traditional gauze dressings) were included. All RCTs were at a medium to high risk of bias. Moist dressings were found to be more advantageous than the traditional dressings. Hydrocolloid dressings [RR = 1.38, 95% CI (1.18, 1.60)] showed a higher cure rate than sterile gauze dressing and foam dressings [RR = 1.37, 95% CI (1.16, 1.61)]. Silver ion dressings [RR = l.37, 95% CI (1.08, 1. 73)] showed a higher cure rate than sterile gauze dressings. Sterile gauze dressing dressings [RR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.44, 0.78)] showed a lower cure rate compared with polymeric membrane dressings; whereas Sterile gauze dressing dressings [RR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.47, 1.37)] had a lower cure rate compared to biological wound dressings. Foam and hydrocolloid dressings were associated with the least healing time. Few dressing changes were required for moist dressings.