Paul Fulbrook1, Vainess Mbuzi2, Sandra Miles3. 1. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia; Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Electronic address: paul.fulbrook@acu.edu.au. 2. Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: vainess.mbuzi@health.qld.gov.au. 3. School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia; Nursing Research and Practice Development Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: sandra.miles@acu.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure injury can cause significant patient physical pain, impact quality of life for individuals and their families, and increase hospital length of stay and healthcare costs. Within the hospital setting, it is considered to be largely preventable and regarded as an adverse event. In this context, prophylactic use of a protective sacral dressing to prevent pressure injury has been investigated by various researchers. OBJECTIVES: Analyse the effectiveness of prophylactic sacral protective dressings to prevent pressure injury. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches were undertaken in 2018 and 2019. Initial searches identified 557 articles. Following duplicate removal and screening, 49 full text articles were reviewed. Most were excluded, leaving six studies that met the criteria for full review. REVIEW METHODS: Two authors assessed study bias and extracted data, with a third reviewer as arbitrator. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted using sample sizes based on intention-to-treat analysis. Sub-group meta-analyses were conducted of three studies in the intensive care setting and four studies that used the same dressing. RESULTS: Overall, the six randomised controlled trials were judged to be of moderate quality. Due to visibility of the intervention, blinding was rare. Five studies were described as intention-to-treat; however two of these presented per-protocol analyses. All studies compared the intervention plus standard care to standard care. Five studies demonstrated statistically significant reduced pressure injury incidence in the intervention group. All studies were included in the meta-analysis (total n = 1872) and demonstrated homogeneity (I2 = 10%). Meta-analysis revealed an overall effect in favour of the intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.51] with a 95% prediction interval of 0.11-0.80. Sub-group analyses of intensive care studies and those using the same dressing demonstrated positive effects (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, I2 = 0%, and RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.764, I2 = 31%; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis provides moderate evidence of the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing to prevent pressure injury, with an overall relative risk indicating that the intervention decreases pressure injury risk by 70%. Sub-group analysis of intensive care studies demonstrated a large relative risk reduction of 83% suggesting the dressing may be more effective in this high-risk group. The lower relative risk reduction of 68% found in four studies using the same dressing, in which there was moderate heterogeneity, indicates that further research is needed to clarify dressing choice.
BACKGROUND:Pressure injury can cause significant patient physical pain, impact quality of life for individuals and their families, and increase hospital length of stay and healthcare costs. Within the hospital setting, it is considered to be largely preventable and regarded as an adverse event. In this context, prophylactic use of a protective sacral dressing to prevent pressure injury has been investigated by various researchers. OBJECTIVES: Analyse the effectiveness of prophylactic sacral protective dressings to prevent pressure injury. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches were undertaken in 2018 and 2019. Initial searches identified 557 articles. Following duplicate removal and screening, 49 full text articles were reviewed. Most were excluded, leaving six studies that met the criteria for full review. REVIEW METHODS: Two authors assessed study bias and extracted data, with a third reviewer as arbitrator. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted using sample sizes based on intention-to-treat analysis. Sub-group meta-analyses were conducted of three studies in the intensive care setting and four studies that used the same dressing. RESULTS: Overall, the six randomised controlled trials were judged to be of moderate quality. Due to visibility of the intervention, blinding was rare. Five studies were described as intention-to-treat; however two of these presented per-protocol analyses. All studies compared the intervention plus standard care to standard care. Five studies demonstrated statistically significant reduced pressure injury incidence in the intervention group. All studies were included in the meta-analysis (total n = 1872) and demonstrated homogeneity (I2 = 10%). Meta-analysis revealed an overall effect in favour of the intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.51] with a 95% prediction interval of 0.11-0.80. Sub-group analyses of intensive care studies and those using the same dressing demonstrated positive effects (RR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, I2 = 0%, and RR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.764, I2 = 31%; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis provides moderate evidence of the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing to prevent pressure injury, with an overall relative risk indicating that the intervention decreases pressure injury risk by 70%. Sub-group analysis of intensive care studies demonstrated a large relative risk reduction of 83% suggesting the dressing may be more effective in this high-risk group. The lower relative risk reduction of 68% found in four studies using the same dressing, in which there was moderate heterogeneity, indicates that further research is needed to clarify dressing choice.