Repositioning for preventing pressure ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Avsar Pinar1,Moore Zena12345,Patton Declan1346,O'Connor Tom146,Budri Aglecia MV1,Nugent Linda12

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing and Midwifery and Skin Wounds and Trauma Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland University of Medicine and Science, Ireland

2. Fakeeh College of Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

3. Lida Institute, Shanghai

4. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

5. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium

6. Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Australia

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of different repositioning regimens on pressure ulcer (PU) incidence in at-risk adult individuals without existing PUs.Method:Using systematic review methodology, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, prospective non-RCTs, pre–post-studies and interrupted-time-series studies were considered. Specifically explored was the impact of the frequency of repositioning, use of repositioning systems and use of turning teams. The search was conducted in January 2019, using PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. Data were extracted using a pre-designed extraction tool and analysis was undertaken using RevMan.Results:A total of 530 records were returned, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Half of studies were conducted in intensive care units (50%). The mean sample size was 629±604 participants. Frequency of repositioning was explored in nine studies. PU incidence was 8% (n=221/2834) for repositioning every 2–3 hours, versus 13% (n=398/3050) for repositioning every 4–6 hours. The odds ratio (OR) was 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61–0.90, p=0.03), suggesting that there is a 25% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of more frequent repositioning. Use of a repositioning system was explored in three studies. PU incidence was 2% (17/865) for the repositioning system, versus 5.5% (51/926) for care without using the repositioning system. The OR was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.05–1.29, p=0.10); this finding was not statistically significant. Use of a turning team was explored in two studies. PU incidence was 11% (n=22/200) with use of a turning team versus 20% (n=40/200) for usual care. The OR was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.27–0.86, p=0.01) suggesting that there is a 51% reduction in the odds of PU development in favour of use of a turning team. Using GRADE appraisal, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low.Conclusion:The results of this systematic review indicate that more frequent repositioning and use of a turning team reduce PU incidence. However, given the low certainty of evidence, results should be interpreted with caution.

Publisher

Mark Allen Group

Subject

Nursing (miscellaneous),Fundamentals and skills

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3