Literature DB >> 22564224

Consensus principles for wound care research obtained using a Delphi process.

Thomas Serena1, Barbara Bates-Jensen, Marissa J Carter, Renee Cordrey, Vickie Driver, Caroline E Fife, Paul B Haser, Diane Krasner, Marcia Nusgart, Adrianne P S Smith, Robert J Snyder.   

Abstract

Too many wound care research studies are poorly designed, badly executed, and missing crucial data. The objective of this study is to create a series of principles for all stakeholders involved in clinical or comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus, using a web-based survey for survey participants and face-to-face conferences for expert panel members. Expert panel (11 members) and 115 wound care researchers (respondents) drawn from 15 different organizations. Principles were rated for validity using 5-point Likert scales and comments. A 66% response rate was achieved in the first Delphi round from the 173 invited survey participants. The response rate for the second Delphi round was 46%. The most common wound care researcher profile was age 46-55 years, a wound care clinic setting, and >10 years' wound care research and clinical experience. Of the initial 17 principles created by the panel, only four principles were not endorsed in Delphi round 1 with another four not requiring revision. Of the 14 principles assessed by respondents in the second Delphi round, only one principle was not endorsed and it was revised; four other principles also needed revision based on the use of specific words or contextual use. Of the 19 final principles, three included detailed numbered lists. With the wide variation in design, conduct, and reporting of wound care research studies, it is hoped that these principles will improve the standard and practice of care in this field.
© 2012 by the Wound Healing Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22564224     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00790.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wound Repair Regen        ISSN: 1067-1927            Impact factor:   3.617


  6 in total

Review 1.  Quality Randomized Clinical Trials of Topical Diabetic Foot Ulcer Healing Agents.

Authors:  Laura L Bolton
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Health Economics Information in Wound Care: The Elephant in the Room.

Authors:  Marissa Janine Carter
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Economic evaluations of guideline-based or strategic interventions for the prevention or treatment of chronic wounds.

Authors:  Marissa J Carter
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.561

4.  Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.

Authors:  Kristen A Eckert; Marissa J Carter
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.617

5.  An aseptically processed, acellular, reticular, allogenic human dermis improves healing in diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre follow-up trial.

Authors:  Charles M Zelen; Dennis P Orgill; Thomas E Serena; Robert E Galiano; Marissa J Carter; Lawrence A DiDomenico; Jennifer Keller; Jarrod P Kaufman; William W Li
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-04-22       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  Consensus on the health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy for patients with chronic wounds: a modified Delphi study.

Authors:  Yao Huang; Beiqian Mao; Jiale Hu; Bing Xu; Pengwen Ni; Lili Hou; Ting Xie
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2021-12-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.