Emily Haesler1, Jan Kottner2, Janet Cuddigan3. 1. Curtin University, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2. Clinical Research Centre for Hair and Skin Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 3. University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Abstract
AIM: A discussion of the methodology used to develop the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. (2014). BACKGROUND: International experts representing National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance developed the second edition of this clinical guideline. DESIGN: Discussion paper - methodology. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search for papers published up to July 2013 was conducted in 11 databases and identified 4286 studies. After critical appraisal, 356 studies were included and assigned a level of evidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Guideline recommendations provide guidance on best practice in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. Understanding the development process of a guideline increases the meaningfulness of recommendations to clinicians. FINDINGS: Five hundred and seventy five recommendations arose from the research and its interpretation. The body of evidence supporting each recommendation was assigned a strength of evidence. A strength of recommendation was assigned to recommendation statements using the GRADE system. Recommendations are primarily supported by a body of evidence rated as C (87% of recommendations), representing low quality and/or indirect evidence (30%) and expert opinion (57%). Two hundred and forty seven recommendations (43%) received a strong recommendation ('Do it'). CONCLUSION: Recommendations were developed with consideration to research of the highest methodological quality evidence and studies that add to clinical insight and provide guidance for areas of care where minimal research has been conducted. Recommendations in the guideline reflect best practice and should be implemented with consideration to local context and resources and the individual's preferences and needs.
AIM: A discussion of the methodology used to develop the Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. (2014). BACKGROUND: International experts representing National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance developed the second edition of this clinical guideline. DESIGN: Discussion paper - methodology. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search for papers published up to July 2013 was conducted in 11 databases and identified 4286 studies. After critical appraisal, 356 studies were included and assigned a level of evidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Guideline recommendations provide guidance on best practice in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. Understanding the development process of a guideline increases the meaningfulness of recommendations to clinicians. FINDINGS: Five hundred and seventy five recommendations arose from the research and its interpretation. The body of evidence supporting each recommendation was assigned a strength of evidence. A strength of recommendation was assigned to recommendation statements using the GRADE system. Recommendations are primarily supported by a body of evidence rated as C (87% of recommendations), representing low quality and/or indirect evidence (30%) and expert opinion (57%). Two hundred and forty seven recommendations (43%) received a strong recommendation ('Do it'). CONCLUSION: Recommendations were developed with consideration to research of the highest methodological quality evidence and studies that add to clinical insight and provide guidance for areas of care where minimal research has been conducted. Recommendations in the guideline reflect best practice and should be implemented with consideration to local context and resources and the individual's preferences and needs.
Authors: Jan Kottner; Elisabeth Hahnel; Andrea Lichterfeld-Kottner; Ulrike Blume-Peytavi; Andreas Büscher Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 3.315