BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.
BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (i.e. bedsores, pressure sores, pressure injuries, decubitus ulcers) are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue. They are common in the elderly and immobile, and costly in financial and human terms. Pressure-relieving support surfaces (i.e. beds, mattresses, seat cushions etc) are used to help prevent ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review seeks to establish:(1) the extent to which pressure-relieving support surfaces reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers compared with standard support surfaces, and,(2) their comparative effectiveness in ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS: In April 2015, for this fourth update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 April 2015) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any support surface for prevention of pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting which measured pressure ulcer incidence. Trials reporting only proxy outcomes (e.g. interface pressure) were excluded. Two review authors independently selected trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one review author and checked by another. Where appropriate, estimates from similar trials were pooled for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: For this fourth update six new trials were included, bringing the total of included trials to 59.Foam alternatives to standard hospital foam mattresses reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in people at risk (RR 0.40 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74). The relative merits of alternating- and constant low-pressure devices are unclear. One high-quality trial suggested that alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context.Pressure-relieving overlays on the operating table reduce postoperative pressure ulcer incidence, although two trials indicated that foam overlays caused adverse skin changes. Meta-analysis of three trials suggest that Australian standard medical sheepskins prevent pressure ulcers (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.32 to 0.97). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People at high risk of developing pressure ulcers should use higher-specification foam mattresses rather than standard hospital foam mattresses. The relative merits of higher-specification constant low-pressure and alternating-pressure support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers are unclear, but alternating-pressure mattresses may be more cost effective than alternating-pressure overlays in a UK context. Medical grade sheepskins are associated with a decrease in pressure ulcer development. Organisations might consider the use of some forms of pressure relief for high risk patients in the operating theatre.
AIM: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical skin care interventions for residents of aged care facilities.
INTRODUCTION: Natural changes to skin, as well as increased predisposition to pressure sores and incontinence, means residents of aged care facilities readily require topical skin care. A range of interventions exist that aim to maintain or improve the integrity of skin of older adults.
METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, Current Contents, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases were searched, as well as Health Technology Assessment websites up to April 2003. Systematic reviews and randomized or non-randomized controlled trials were evaluated for quality and data were independently extracted by two reviewers.
RESULTS: The effectiveness of topical skin interventions was variable and dependent on the skin condition being treated. Studies examined the effectiveness of washing products on incontinence irritated skin. Disposable bodyworns may prevent deterioration of skin condition better than non-disposable underpads or bodyworns. Clinisan, a no-rinse cleanser may reduce the incidence of incontinence associated pressure ulcers when compared with soap and water.
CONCLUSION: In general the quality of evidence for interventions to improve or maintain the skin condition in the older person was poor and more research in this area is needed.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Skin care is a major issue for nurses working with older people. On the basis of this review no clear recommendations can be made. This lack of strong evidence for nurses to base effective practice decisions is problematic. However, the 'best' evidence suggests that disposable bodyworns are a good investment in the fight against skin deterioration. No rinse cleansers are to be preferred over soap and the use of the bag bath appears to be a useful practice to reduce the risk of dry skin (a risk factor for breaches in skin integrity).
CONTEXT: Pressure ulcers are common in a variety of patient settings and are associated with adverse health outcomes and high treatment costs.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence examining interventions to prevent pressure ulcers.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from inception through June 2006) and Cochrane databases (through issue 1, 2006) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations, ISI Web of Science, and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts were also searched. All searches used the terms pressure ulcer, pressure sore, decubitus, bedsore, prevention, prophylactic, reduction, randomized, and clinical trials. Bibliographies of identified articles were further reviewed.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-nine RCTs were selected. Interventions assessed in these studies were grouped into 3 categories, ie, those addressing impairments in mobility, nutrition, or skin health. Methodological quality for the RCTs was variable and generally suboptimal. Effective strategies that addressed impaired mobility included the use of support surfaces, mattress overlays on operating tables, and specialized foam and specialized sheepskin overlays. While repositioning is a mainstay in most pressure ulcer prevention protocols, there is insufficient evidence to recommend specific turning regimens for patients with impaired mobility. In patients with nutritional impairments, dietary supplements may be beneficial. The incremental benefit of specific topical agents over simple moisturizers for patients with impaired skin health is unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: Given current evidence, using support surfaces, repositioning the patient, optimizing nutritional status, and moisturizing sacral skin are appropriate strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. Although a number of RCTs have evaluated preventive strategies for pressure ulcers, many of them had important methodological limitations. There is a need for well-designed RCTs that follow standard criteria for reporting nonpharmacological interventions and that provide data on cost-effectiveness for these interventions.
Aim. This paper reports a systematic review conducted to determine the effectiveness of the use of risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention in clinical practice, degree of validation of risk assessment scales, and effectiveness of risk assessment scales as indicators of risk of developing a pressure ulcer. Background. Pressure ulcers are an important health problem. The best strategy to avoid them is prevention. There are several risk assessment scales for pressure ulcer prevention which complement nurses' clinical judgement. However, some of these have not undergone proper validation. Method. A systematic bibliographical review was conducted, based on a search of 14 databases in four languages using the keywords pressure ulcer or pressure sore or decubitus ulcer and risk assessment. Reports of clinical trials or prospective studies of validation were included in the review. Findings. Thirty-three studies were included in the review, three on clinical effectiveness and the rest on scale validation. There is no decrease in pressure ulcer incidence was found which might be attributed to use of an assessment scale. However, the use of scales increases the intensity and effectiveness of prevention interventions. The Braden Scale shows optimal validation and the best sensitivity/specificity balance (57.1%/67.5%, respectively); its score is a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (odds ratio = 4.08, CI 95% = 2.56-6.48). The Norton Scale has reasonable scores for sensitivity (46.8%), specificity (61.8%) and risk prediction (OR = 2.16, CI 95% = 1.03-4.54). The Waterlow Scale offers a high sensitivity score (82.4%), but low specificity (27.4%); with a good risk prediction score (OR = 2.05, CI 95% = 1.11-3.76). Nurses' clinical judgement (only considered in three studies) gives moderate scores for sensitivity (50.6%) and specificity (60.1%), but is not a good pressure ulcer risk predictor (OR = 1.69, CI 95% = 0.76-3.75). Conclusion. There is no evidence that the use of risk assessment scales decreases pressure ulcer incidence. The Braden Scale offers the best balance between sensitivity and specificity and the best risk estimate. Both the Braden and Norton Scales are more accurate than nurses' clinical judgement in predicting pressure ulcer risk.
BACKGROUND: There have been few systematic reviews and no meta-analyses of the clinical benefits of nutritional support in patients with, or at risk of developing, pressure ulcers. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to address the impact of enteral nutritional support on pressure ulcer incidence and healing and a range of other clinically relevant outcome measures in this group.
METHODS: Fifteen studies (including eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) or enteral tube feeding (ETF), identified using electronic databases (including Pub Med and Cochrane) and bibliography searches, were included in the systematic review. Outcomes including pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer healing, quality of life, complications, mortality, anthropometry and dietary intake were recorded, with the aim of comparing nutritional support versus routine care (e.g. usual diet and pressure ulcer care) and nutritional formulas of different composition. Of these 15 studies, 5 RCTs comparing ONS (4 RCTs) and ETF (1 RCT) with routine care could be included in a meta-analysis of pressure ulcer incidence.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis showed that ONS (250-500 kcal, 2-26 weeks) were associated with a significantly lower incidence of pressure ulcer development in at-risk patients compared to routine care (odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.89, 4 RCTs, n=1224, elderly, post-surgical, chronically hospitalised patients). Similar results were obtained when a combined meta-analysis of ONS (4 RCT) and ETF (1 RCT) trials was performed (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, 5 RCTs, n=1325). Individual studies showed a trend towards improved healing of existing pressure ulcers with disease-specific (including high protein) versus standard formulas, although robust RCTs are required to confirm this. Although some studies indicate that total nutritional intake is improved, data on other outcome measures (quality of life) are lacking.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows enteral nutritional support, particularly high protein ONS, can significantly reduce the risk of developing pressure ulcers (by 25%). Although studies suggest ONS and ETF may improve healing of PU, further research to confirm this trend is required.
Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.
SEARCH METHODS:
We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.
