Protease activity as a prognostic factor for wound healing in venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a common type of complex wound that have a negative impact on people's lives and incur high costs for health services and society. It has been suggested that prolonged high levels of protease activity in the later stages of the healing of chronic wounds may be associated with delayed healing. Protease modulating treatments have been developed which seek to modulate protease activity and thereby promote healing in chronic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether protease activity is an independent prognostic factor for the healing of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2018, we searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies with any follow-up period that recruited people with VLUs and investigated whether protease activity in wound fluid was associated with future healing of VLUs. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed as cohort studies, provided interventions were taken into account in the analysis, and case-control studies if there were no available cohort studies. We also included prediction model studies provided they reported separately associations of individual prognostic factors (protease activity) with healing. Studies of any type of protease or combination of proteases were eligible, including proteases from bacteria, and the prognostic factor could be examined as a continuous or categorical variable; any cut-off point was permitted. The primary outcomes were time to healing (survival analysis) and the proportion of people with ulcers completely healed; the secondary outcome was change in ulcer size/rate of wound closure. We extracted unadjusted (simple) and adjusted (multivariable) associations between the prognostic factor and healing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We collected association statistics where available. No study reported adjusted analyses: instead we collected unadjusted results or calculated association measures from raw data. We calculated risk ratios when both outcome and prognostic factor were dichotomous variables. When the prognostic factor was reported as continuous data and healing outcomes were dichotomous, we either performed regression analysis or analysed the impact of healing on protease levels, analysing as the standardised mean difference. When both prognostic factor and outcome were continuous data, we reported correlation coefficients or calculated them from individual participant data.We displayed all results on forest plots to give an overall visual representation. We planned to conduct meta-analyses where this was appropriate, otherwise we summarised narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies comprising 21 cohorts involving 646 participants. Only 11 studies (13 cohorts, 522 participants) had data available for analysis. Of these, five were prospective cohort studies, four were RCTs and two had a type of case-control design. Follow-up time ranged from four to 36 weeks. Studies covered 10 different matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) and two serine proteases (human neutrophil elastase and urokinase-type plasminogen activators). Two studies recorded complete healing as an outcome; other studies recorded partial healing measures. There was clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies; for example, in the definition of healing, the type of protease and its measurement, the distribution of active and bound protease species, the types of treatment and the reporting of results. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. No study had conducted multivariable analyses and all included evidence was of very low certainty because of the lack of adjustment for confounders, the high risk of bias for all studies except one, imprecision around the measures of association and inconsistency in the direction of association. Collectively the research indicated complete uncertainty as to the association between protease activity and VLU healing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified very low validity evidence regarding any association between protease activity and VLU healing and there is complete uncertainty regarding the relationship. The review offers information for both future research and systematic review methodology

The Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds: A NICE medical technology guidance

As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft® to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft® was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft® remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft®. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft® and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).The Birmingham and Brunel Consortium is funded by NICE to act as an External Assessment Centre for the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme

Pressure redistributing static chairs for preventing pressure ulcers (Protocol)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of pressure redistributing static chairs on the prevention of pressure ulcers in health, rehabilitation, social care settings, and places of residence in which people may spend their day

Effect of encouraging awareness of reduced fetal movement and subsequent clinical management on pregnancy outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective Reduced fetal movement (RFM), defined as a decrease in maternal perception of frequency or strength of fetal movements, is a common reason for presentation to maternity care. Observational studies demonstrate an association between RFM, stillbirth, and fetal growth restriction related to placental insufficiency. However, individual intervention studies have described varying results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether interventions aiming to encourage awareness of reduced fetal movement and/or improve its subsequent clinical management reduce the frequency of stillbirth or other important secondary outcomes. Data sources Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Guidelines, trial registries, and grey literature were also searched. Databases were searched from inception to the 20th January 2022. Study eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies (NRS) were eligible if they assessed interventions aiming to encourage awareness of fetal movement or fetal movement counting and/or improve the subsequent clinical management of RFM. Eligible populations were singleton pregnancies after 24 completed weeks of gestation. The primary review outcome was stillbirth; a number of secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were specified in the review. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I for RCTs and NRS respectively. Variation due to heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Data from studies employing similar interventions was combined using random effects meta-analysis. Results 1,609 citations were identified; 190 full text papers were evaluated against the inclusion criteria, 18 studies (16 RCTs and 2 NRS) were included. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of encouraging awareness of fetal movement on stillbirth compared with standard care (two studies, n=330,084); pooled aOR 1.19 (95% CI 0.96, 1.47). Interventions for encouraging awareness of fetal movement may be associated with a reduction in NICU admissions and Apgar scores <7 at five minutes of age and may not be associated with increases in caesarean section or induction of labour. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of encouraging fetal movement counting on stillbirth compared with standard care; pooled OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.18, 2.65), data from three RCTs (n=70,584). Counting fetal movements may increase maternal fetal attachment and decrease anxiety compared with standard care. When comparing combined interventions of fetal movement awareness and subsequent clinical management with standard care (one study, n=393,857) the evidence is uncertain about the effect on stillbirth (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70, 1.05). Conclusions The effect of interventions for encouraging awareness of RFM alone or in combination with subsequent clinical management on stillbirth is uncertain. Encouraging awareness of fetal movement may be associated with reduced adverse neonatal outcomes without an increase in interventions in labour. Meta-analysis is hampered by variation in interventions, outcome reporting and definitions. Individual studies are frequently underpowered to detect a reduction in severe, rare outcomes and no studies were included from high-burden settings. Studies from such settings are needed to determine whether interventions can reduce stillbirth

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials: ICon-B study

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making. AIMS: The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies. METHODS: (1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096647

Just-in-Time Information Improved Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: The "Just-in-time Information" (JIT) librarian consultation service was designed to provide rapid information to answer primary care clinical questions during patient hours. This study evaluated whether information provided by librarians to answer clinical questions positively impacted time, decision-making, cost savings and satisfaction. METHODS AND FINDING: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between October 2005 and April 2006. A total of 1,889 questions were sent to the service by 88 participants. The object of the randomization was a clinical question. Each participant had clinical questions randomly allocated to both intervention (librarian information) and control (no librarian information) groups. Participants were trained to send clinical questions via a hand-held device. The impact of the information provided by the service (or not provided by the service), additional resources and time required for both groups was assessed using a survey sent 24 hours after a question was submitted. The average time for JIT librarians to respond to all questions was 13.68 minutes/question (95% CI, 13.38 to 13.98). The average time for participants to respond their control questions was 20.29 minutes/question (95% CI, 18.72 to 21.86). Using an impact assessment scale rating cognitive impact, participants rated 62.9% of information provided to intervention group questions as having a highly positive cognitive impact. They rated 14.8% of their own answers to control question as having a highly positive cognitive impact, 44.9% has having a negative cognitive impact, and 24.8% with no cognitive impact at all. In an exit survey measuring satisfaction, 86% (62/72 responses) of participants scored the service as having a positive impact on care and 72% (52/72) indicated that they would use the service frequently if it were continued. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, providing timely information to clinical questions had a highly positive impact on decision-making and a high approval rating from participants. Using a librarian to respond to clinical questions may allow primary care professionals to have more time in their day, thus potentially increasing patient access to care. Such services may reduce costs through decreasing the need for referrals, further tests, and other courses of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN96823810

An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. METHODS: This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-138) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users