Background: Wound dressings are essential in the treatment of chronic wounds and should be selected on valid and recent evidence. Objective: Effectiveness of advanced compared to conventional dressings for chronic wound healing. Methods: Comprehensive literature search, systematic review and meta-analyses of the results of advanced dressing studies on chronic wound treatment. Comprehensiveness and coverage of all relevant studies is the most striking difference in relation to other meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Results: The mean odds ratio of complete healing was 1.52 favouring advanced over conventional dressings in 65 controlled trials. In 287 study conditions including uncontrolled studies, mean odds were 0.97 (advanced dressings/controlled studies), 0.77 (conventional/controlled) and 0.47 (advanced/uncontrolled). The overall healing rate was 33%. When causal treatment was applied, a reduced effect was observed. The consideration of all types of chronic wounds, advanced wound dressings and studies resulted in more study effects, more reliable estimates of mean effects and more statistical power. These differences in the design are likely to explain the differences in the meta-analytic results. Conclusion: A general superiority of advanced dressings on complete healing was shown. The generalizability of the results is limited by the methodological and report quality within studies identified, unexplained heterogeneity in study effects and possibly by publication bias.

1.
Becker R, Kröger K: Modern wound care from a socio-epidemiological perspective. Wundmanagement 2011;1:15-21.
2.
Posnett J, Gottrup F, Lundgren H, Saal G: The resource impact of wounds on health-care providers in Europe. J Wound Care 2009;18:154-161.
3.
Herberger K, Rustenbach SJ, Grams L, Münter KC, Schäfer E, Augustin M: Quality-of-care for leg ulcer in the metropolitan area of Hamburg - a community-based study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011;26:495-502.
4.
Charles H: Does leg ulcer treatment improve patient‘s quality of life? J Wound Care 2003;13:205-213.
5.
Kjaer ML, Sorensen LT, Karlsmark T, Mainz J, Gottrup F: Evaluation of the quality of venous leg ulcer care given in a multidisciplinary specialist centre. J Wound Care 2005;14:145-150.
6.
Purwins S, Herberger K, Debus ES, Rustenbach SJ, Pelzer P, Rabe E, Schäfer E, Stadler R, Augustin M: Cost-of-illness of chronic leg ulcers in Germany. Int Wound J 2010;7:97-102.
7.
Pelka R: The economic situation of chronic wounds. Krankenpfl J 1997;35:338.
8.
Protz K: Moderne Wundversorgung. München, Elsevier, 2011.
9.
Palfreyman S, Nelson EA, Michaels JA: Dressings for venous leg ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2007;335:244-248.
10.
Bergin SM, Wraight P: Silver based wound dressing and topical agents for treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1:CD005082.
11.
Dumville JC, O'Meara S, Deshpande S, Speak K: Hydrogel dressing for healing diabetic foot ulcers (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;9:CD009101.
12.
Dumville JC, Soares MO, O'Meara S, Cullum N: Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetologia 2012;55:1902-1910.
13.
Singh A, Halder S, Menon GR, Chumber S, Misra MC, Sharma LK, Srivastava A: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on hydrocolloid occlusive dressing versus conventional gauze dressing in the healing of chronic wounds. Asian J Surg 2004;27:326-332.
14.
Bouza C, Munoz A, Amate JM: Efficacy of modern dressings in the treatment of leg ulcers: a systematic review. Wound Repair Regen 2005;13:218-229.
15.
Goossens A, Cleenewerck MB: New wound dressings: classification, tolerance. Eur J Dermatol 2010;20:24-26.
16.
Yates F: Contingency tables involving small numbers and the chi-squared test. J R Stat Soc 1934;1(suppl):217-235.
17.
Shadish WR, Haddock CK: Combining estimates of effect size; in Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds): The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, Sage, 2009, pp 261-281.
18.
Fleiss JL: Measures of effect size for categorical data; in Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds): The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, Sage, 1994, pp 245-260.
19.
Hedges LV, Olkin I: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, Academic Press, 1985.
20.
Rustenbach SJ: Meta-Analyse: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, ed 1. Bern, Huber, 2003.
21.
Viechtbauer W: Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010;36:1-48.
22.
Viechtbauer W: Metafor: Meta-Analysis Package for R. R package version 1.4-0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metafor (accessed August 22, 2012).
23.
Gottrup F, Apelqvist J, Price P: Outcomes in controlled and comparative studies on non-healing wounds: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence in wound management. European Wound Management Association Patient Outcome Group. J Wound Care 2010;19:237-268.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.