Context Many treatments for pressure ulcers are promoted, but their relative efficacy is unclear.
Objective To systematically review published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating therapies for pressure ulcers.
Data Sources and Study Selection The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched (from inception through August 23, 2008) to identify relevant RCTs published in the English language.
Data Extraction Methodological characteristics and outcomes were extracted by 3 investigators.
Data Synthesis A total of 103 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of these, 83 did not provide sufficient information about authors' potential financial conflicts of interest. Methodological quality was variable. Most trials were conducted in acute care (38 [37%]), mixed care (25 [24%]), or long-term care (22 [21%]) settings. Among 12 RCTs evaluating support surfaces, no clear evidence favored one support surface over another. No trials compared a specialized support surface with a standard mattress and repositioning. Among 7 RCTs evaluating nutritional supplements, 1 higher-quality trial found that protein supplementation of long-term care residents improved wound healing compared with placebo (improvement in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing mean [SD] score of 3.55 [4.66] vs 3.22 [4.11], respectively; P < .05). Other nutritional supplement RCTs showed mixed results. Among 54 RCTs evaluating absorbent wound dressings, 1 found calcium alginate dressings improved healing compared with dextranomer paste (mean wound surface area reduction per week, 2.39 cm2 vs 0.27 cm2, respectively; P<.001). No other dressing was superior to alternatives. Among 9 RCTs evaluating biological agents, several trials reported benefits with different topical growth factors. However, the incremental benefit of these biological agents over less expensive standard wound care remains uncertain. No clear benefit was identified in 21 RCTs evaluating adjunctive therapies including electric current, ultrasound, light therapy, and vacuum therapy.
Conclusions Little evidence supports the use of a specific support surface or dressing over other alternatives. Similarly, there is little evidence to support routine nutritional supplementation or adjunctive therapies compared with standard care.
Quiz Ref IDPressure ulcers are regions of localized damage to the skin and underlying tissues that usually develop over bony prominences such as the sacrum or heels.1-3 These lesions are an important source of suffering for patients and their caregivers. Pressure ulcer prevalence varies widely depending on patient factors (eg, age, physical impairments) and treatment setting.4-7
Treatment strategies for pressure ulcers can be both costly and complex. Hundreds of different mattresses and local wound care products are currently promoted,4 and few have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It remains unclear which of the many available treatments promote the most effective healing of pressure ulcers.8-11
While several effective strategies to prevent pressure ulcers exist,6 many patients continue to develop them. This is especially true in high-risk settings such as acute care hospitals, in which patients have reduced mobility.12,13 Thus, clinicians require an understanding of effective treatment options. We examined the evidence supporting interventions for the treatment of pressure ulcers.
The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception through August 23, 2008, to identify relevant RCTs. The following search terms were used: pressure ulcer, pressure sore, decubitus, bedsore, chronic wound, treatment, therapy, management, randomized, and clinical trials. A hand search also was performed to identify any other articles. Inclusion criteria were RCTs published in the English language that reported objective, clinically relevant outcome measures such as healing rates or wound size. When the search was not limited to studies published in the English language, 2 non–English-language trials were found: one in Italian (294 participants)14 and another in Japanese (19 participants).15 Because few non–English-language trials were found and the total number of participants in these trials was small, this study was limited to RCTs published in the English language. Studies that evaluated chronic wounds other than pressure ulcers or assessed only adverse events or secondary outcomes (eg, pain) were excluded. There was too much clinical heterogeneity in the individual RCTs to permit meaningful pooling of the data in a meta-analysis.
Sources of funding were extracted from the trials using a method described by Als-Nielsen et al.16 We also determined if the RCTs reported any potential author conflicts of interest.
Information was extracted regarding participant age, population studied, and treatment setting. Trials used different terms to describe treatment settings. These terms were grouped as follows: acute care, long-term care, palliative care, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, and home care. Pressure ulcers at the beginning of each trial are described by stage unless the trial used different terminology (such as superficial or deep).
The included RCTs were categorized into 3 groups depending on whether they investigated the management of underlying contributing factors, the effects of local wound care, or adjunctive therapies. This approach was selected because wound specialists approach pressure ulcer management sequentially; first, reduce or eliminate underlying contributing factors (support surfaces and nutritional supplementation), then provide local wound care (wound dressings and biological agents), and finally consider adjunctive therapies (eg, vacuum therapy).17
A criterion standard for quantifying outcomes in ulcer healing has not been established.18,19 Surrogate end points (eg, amount of granulation tissue, degree of debridement, and bacterial burden) do not directly measure healing and may not correlate with healing.20,21 Measurement of wound surface area, including wound depth and undermining (ie, tunneling under the skin), is a reliable and valid method of assessing wound healing.19 Therefore, only studies that calculated wound size with wound volume and/or surface area, used evaluation tools that incorporated these measurements, or used complete wound healing as end points were included.
Individual trials used various terms to describe outcomes. Some trials used scales such as Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing22 or Pressure Sore Status Tool.23 For simplicity, remaining terms were classified into 3 categories: complete wound healing (ie, proportion of individuals whose wounds healed), time to healing (ie, time to complete wound healing), and wound surface area (ie, changes over time).
Methodological quality of the RCTs was determined using 6 elements from the checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) (http://www.bichat.inserm.fr/equipes/Emi0357/docs/usersguidelines.pdf)24 that are relevant to therapies for pressure ulcers: (1) adequate allocation sequence generation (ie, use of an appropriate method to generate the randomization sequence); (2) concealed treatment allocation; (3) adequate participant blinding; (4) adequate outcome assessor blinding; (5) comparable rates of other treatments and care in each randomized group (eg, frequency of dressing changes); and (6) intention-to-treat analysis. If these elements were not explicitly reported, they were considered not performed. Three authors (M.R., S.R.K., W.W.) independently rated each RCT and reached consensus. Trials meeting 4 or more of the CLEAR NPT criteria were considered good quality. Trials meeting 3 or less of the CLEAR NPT criteria were considered suboptimal. We also assessed which articles reported a sample size justification to determine whether RCTs were adequately powered to detect either clinically important differences or equivalence of compared treatments.25
Specialized support surfaces such as mattresses and cushions redistribute a patient's weight over skin and subcutaneous tissues as it presses against a bed or chair surface.26 A reduction of pressure between the body and the support surface is considered helpful in healing pressure ulcers. The distinction between types of support surfaces is important because costs vary widely. Support surfaces were categorized using the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system26: nonpowered (support surfaces such as foam that do not need electricity, previously known as static) and powered (support surfaces such as rotating beds that require electricity, previously known as dynamic). An overlay is a support surface designed to be placed on top of another support surface. Powered support surfaces are generally more expensive than nonpowered surfaces.6 Standard hospital mattresses (ie, not a specialized support surface) usually incur a 1-time cost of less than $200, but specialized support surfaces (frequently rented) can range from less than $5 per month for nonpowered mattress overlays to more than $3250 per month for some powered support surfaces.27
Randomized controlled trials that described nutritional supplementation by any method (eg, enterally or parenterally) were included. Local wound care dressings were categorized by function rather than form (eg, films or gels).28 Because many dressings perform more than 1 function, they were categorized based on their primary purpose: exudate absorbing (eg, foams), debriding (eg, collagenase), hydrating (eg, hydrocolloids), antimicrobial (eg, silver, povidone-iodine), and other (eg, did not fit any of these categories, fit in >1 category, or function was unclear). Adjunctive therapies were defined as modalities that neither directly address the underlying contributing factors nor primarily address local wound care (eg, vacuum therapy).
The search identified 872 abstracts, from which 103 relevant RCTs were selected. The flow diagram shows an overview of the study selection process (Figure). The 103 RCTs included 5889 participants. Only 15 trials involved more than 100 participants29-43 and 22 provided a sample size justification.29-32,35,39,40,42,44-57
Thirty-eight of the 103 trials took place in acute care (37%), 25 in mixed settings (24%), 22 in long-term care (21%), 6 in rehabilitation (6%), 4 in ambulatory care (4%), 3 in home care (3%), 1 in palliative care (1%), and 4 did not mention their treatment setting (4%). Twenty-two trials (21.4%) included only participants older than 60 years or described participants as elderly and 11 trials (10.7%) included only participants with spinal cord injuries.
Forty-five trials reported funding by the for-profit manufacturers of the products under evaluation (43.7%), 15 reported funding from nonprofit peer-reviewed granting agencies only (14.6%), 14 reported funding from for-profit and nonprofit organizations (13.6%), and 29 did not indicate sources of funding (28.2%). Eighty-three trials (80.6%) did not provide sufficient information about authors' potential financial conflicts of interest.
Three authors (M.R., S.K., W.W.) independently rated each RCT on CLEAR NPT items. Initial agreement was 83% (92% for adequate description of generation of allocation sequences, 81% for treatment allocation concealment, 82% for adequate participant blinding, 87% for adequate blinding of outcome assessors, 68% for co-interventions same in each group, and 90% for intention-to-treat analysis). Differences were resolved by consensus. Sixteen of the 103 trials (15.5%) met 4 or more of the CLEAR NPT criteria.
Nineteen RCTs (1572 participants) evaluated interventions for underlying contributing factors. Twelve RCTs (1214 participants) evaluated support surfaces (Table 1).29,30,39-42,44-46,58-60 None evaluated the effects of repositioning alone.
Quiz Ref IDSix RCTs directly compared powered (eg, alternating pressure) with nonpowered (eg, foam) support surfaces.30,41,42,45,58,59 Russell et al30 and Day and Leonard41 found no differences in pressure ulcer healing between powered and nonpowered support surfaces. The remaining 4 studies, which met fewer quality criteria than Russell et al,30 suggested that powered support surfaces were superior to nonpowered support surfaces,42,45,58,59 although 1 RCT did not report statistical significance.58 Inconsistent findings in these 6 studies result in persistent uncertainty regarding the benefit of powered support surfaces.
Five RCTs compared different types of powered mattresses. Evans et al60 and Nixon et al40 found no differences in ulcer healing between the 2 powered support surfaces they compared. Allman et al44 found that ulcer surface area decreased with an air-fluidized mattress but increased on an alternating pressure mattress (median changes, −1.2 vs 0.5 cm2 [95% confidence interval for the difference, −9.2 to −0.6 cm2]; P = .01).
Seven RCTs (358 participants) evaluated nutritional supplements (Table 2).61-67 All were oral supplements, but contents varied in each trial. Lee et al61 evaluated ulcer healing over 8 weeks in long-term care residents randomized to either a collagen protein supplement or placebo combined with standard care. Healing was measured with the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (0 = healed, 17 = worst possible score).18 Individuals randomized to the supplement had better healing than those randomized to placebo (mean [SD] improvement in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing score, 3.55 [4.66] vs 3.22 [4.11], respectively; P < .05).
ter Riet et al64 compared high-dose (500 mg twice daily) with low-dose (10 mg twice daily) vitamin C given for either 12 weeks or until pressure ulcer healing (whichever came first) and found no differences in wound closure rates or mean change in ulcer surface area per week. In contrast, Taylor et al66 found that 500 mg of vitamin C twice daily was better than placebo (mean reduction in pressure ulcer area, 84% vs 42.7%; P < .005). Several factors may explain the disparate findings. The study by ter Riet et al,64 but not the study by Taylor et al,66 provided an adequate description of generation of allocation sequences and used an intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, the study by ter Riet et al64 included more patients (88 vs 20 in Taylor et al66), was multicentered, and had longer follow-up (12 vs 4 weeks, respectively). Thus, the value of vitamin C supplementation in pressure ulcer treatment remains uncertain.
Two other trials that found beneficial effects for nutritional supplements had suboptimal quality.62,63 One of these did not report statistical significance.63 Desneves et al62 compared 3 diets in a study of 16 patients: standard hospital diet, standard hospital diet plus high protein, and standard hospital diet plus high protein with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants. The first 2 groups did not achieve significant improvements in pressure ulcer healing as measured by the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing, but the third group did.
Eleven of 19 studies (57.9%) evaluating underlying contributing factors adequately described the generation of random allocation sequences. Of the 19 studies, 8 indicated that participants were randomized using concealed allocation (42.1%).
Because blinding may be difficult when studying support surfaces, ratings for the CLEAR NPT item regarding participant blinding were not included in Table 1. It is feasible, however, to blind participants in nutritional supplement trials but this was done in only 4 of 7 trials. In all 19 RCTs evaluating underlying contributing factors, it was feasible to perform blinded outcome assessments, and this was described in 11 trials (57.9%).
Co-interventions were described as consistent in all treatment groups among 14 of the 19 studies (73.7%). Intention-to-treat analyses were described in only 3 of these 19 studies (15.8%). One support surface study60 met all 5 CLEAR NPT criteria, 1 nutrition study64 met 5 of 6 criteria, and two30,61 of the 19 RCTs met 4 criteria.
Sixty-three RCTs (3330 participants) evaluated interventions targeting local wound care. Fifty-four RCTs (2857 participants) evaluated wound dressings (Table 3A and Table 3B).31,32,34-38,48-53,55-57,68-105Quiz Ref IDFive of the 7 highest-quality RCTs of wound dressings found no difference in wound healing with the products they compared: collagenase vs fibrinolysin or deoxyribonuclease, collagenase vs hydrocolloid, radiant heat dressing vs hydrocolloid and/or alginate and phenytoin solution vs normal saline.31,50,56,69,97 Sayag et al49 performed a multicentered trial of 92 patients aged 60 years or older with pressure ulcers in acute care. They found that mean wound surface area reduction per week was 2.39 cm2 (SD, 3.54) in wounds treated with calcium alginate and 0.27 cm2 (SD, 3.21) in wounds treated with dextranomer paste (P<.001). Gerding and Browning94 found oxyquinoline improved wound healing compared with lanolin or petrolatum. However, lanolin may cause allergic contact dermatitis and has fallen out of favor in chronic wound treatment.106,107 No debriding agent was consistently superior to other dressings for wound healing.31,48,68,69,71
Nine RCTs (473 participants) evaluated biological agents (Table 4).33,108-115 Three trials examined the effects of platelet-derived growth factors. The trial that met the most CLEAR NPT criteria was performed by Rees et al,33 which compared 3 doses of recombinant human platelet–derived growth factor with placebo. The incidence of complete healing was greater in all 3 recombinant human platelet–derived growth factor groups (P < .03 in all groups) compared with placebo.
In another trial, nerve growth factor improved healing when compared with placebo at 6-week follow-up (mean [SD] reduction in pressure ulcer area, 738  vs 485  mm2; P = .03).112
Of the 63 studies examining local wound care, 22 adequately described the generation of random allocation sequences (34.9%) and 13 reported that participants were randomized using concealed allocation (20.6%). Only 15 of the 63 studies (23.8%) described adequate participant blinding. Adequate blinding of outcome assessors was described in 23 studies (36.5%). Co-interventions were equally applied in 28 studies (44.4%), and intention-to-treat analyses were performed in only 10 studies (15.9%). None of the 63 studies examining local wound care fulfilled all 6 CLEAR NPT criteria. One study49 of dressings met 5 of the 6 criteria, 6 studies31,50,56,69,94,97 of dressings met 4 of the 6 criteria, and 2 studies33,112 of biological agents met 4 of the 6 criteria. Fourteen of the 63 RCTs (22.2%) did not meet any of the CLEAR NPT criteria.32,48,55,74,81,84,86-88,91,93,95,108
Twenty-one RCTs (987 participants) evaluated adjunctive therapies (Table 5).43,47,54,116-133Quiz Ref IDAmong the good-quality RCTs examining adjunctive therapies, there were no benefits to the interventions, which included electric current (vs placebo electric current),54 laser127 (vs moist saline gauze), and ultrasound123 (vs placebo ultrasound).
Two RCTs examined electromagnetic therapy and found improvements in wound healing compared with placebo or standard care,125,126 but 1 of these RCTs did not report statistical significance.126 Four trials examined light therapy,43,128-130 with the highest-quality trial43 demonstrating no improvement in healing with light therapy compared with placebo therapy.
Two RCTs studied vacuum therapy and found no improvement in wound healing compared with cadexomer iodine, papain-urea-chlorophyllin copper, or moist gauze.116,117 Of the 21 studies evaluating adjunctive therapies, 5 adequately described the generation of random allocation sequences (23.8%) and 2 provided information indicating that participants were randomized with concealed allocation (9.5%). Thirteen of the studies (61.9%) blinded participants adequately. Adequate blinding of outcome assessors was described in 14 of the 21 studies (66.7%).
Co-interventions were balanced between groups in 16 of the 21 studies (76.2%). Intention-to-treat analyses were performed in only 2 studies (9.5%). None of the 21 studies examining local wound care fulfilled all 6 criteria from the CLEAR NPT checklist. Two studies54,127 of adjunctive therapies met 5 of the 6 criteria and 1 study123 met 4 of 6 CLEAR NPT criteria.
Fundamental to chronic wound care are managing the underlying contributing factors, local wound care, and adjunctive therapies. Guidelines for the practical management of pressure ulcers3 are available from the Wound Healing Society (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118605275/issue). Management of underlying contributing factors is likely more valuable in treating pressure ulcers than either topical or adjunctive therapies. Thus, priority should be given to addressing underlying causes.17 However, only 19 of 103 studies focused on management of underlying contributing factors, while the remaining 84 trials examined local wound care and adjunctive therapies. Overall, few RCTs demonstrated meaningful outcome differences between specific treatment strategies.
We did not find evidence that powered mattresses were superior to nonpowered mattresses. Quiz Ref IDSupport surfaces only address 1 aspect of pressure ulcer formation (ie, pressure), and not other important forces associated with immobility and ulcer formation (such as shear, friction, temperature, and moisture). To address the forces that contribute to ulcer formation, regular turning and transferring schedules may provide a less expensive alternative to costly support surfaces.136 No trial examined optimal turning or transferring regimens.
We found little evidence that nutritional supplements improve pressure ulcer healing in patients without specific nutritional deficiencies. Protein supplementation of long-term care residents may be beneficial. None of the included RCTs documented nutritional deficiencies prior to nutrient supplementation, so it is uncertain whether the benefits of protein supplementation are limited to individuals who have protein deficiencies.
No single dressing was consistently superior to other dressings in the trials of pressure ulcers we examined. Similar results exist for other chronic wounds. Cochrane reviews have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show any 1 dressing type better than others for arterial ulcers,8 venous stasis ulcers,9 or surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.11 Standard local wound care for a healable pressure ulcer (ie, 1 with reversible underlying factors) should satisfy the 3 criteria of moisture balance, bacterial balance, and debridement.
Standard local wound care for a maintenance or nonhealable pressure ulcer may require antiseptics.17,134,135 Controversy persists in the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of antiseptics (such as povidone-iodine solution).134,137 Two of the RCTs we examined compared antiseptics with moist dressings.81,93 Neither of these trials met any CLEAR NPT criteria. Antiseptics are inexpensive and non-RCT evidence supports their continued use in maintenance or nonhealable wounds to help prevent wound deterioration.134 Because no single dressing was superior to others, clinicians should select dressings that fulfill criteria for standard local wound care, while considering cost, ease of use, goals of care, and patient comfort.
Our results suggest recombinant human platelet–derived growth factor and nerve growth factor may improve healing, but further study is needed to confirm that these expensive agents provide value over standard care in clinical practice.33,112
We found no evidence that adjunctive therapies improve pressure ulcer healing. A recent systematic review of vacuum therapy concluded that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate clinical benefit, and the large number of prematurely terminated and unpublished trials of vacuum therapy is concerning.138 No RCTs of hyperbaric oxygen therapy met our inclusion criteria. Two recent systematic reviews could not conclude if there was any benefit of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on pressure ulcers.139,140 Another systematic review141 found insufficient evidence to reach conclusions regarding the contributions of laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy, and electromagnetic therapy to chronic wound healing. Overall, there are limited data to support routine use of these expensive adjunctive therapies in managing pressure ulcers.
The methodological quality of the RCTs in our review was often inadequate. Only 1 of the 103 RCTs60 met all of the quality standards we selected from the CLEAR NPT checklist. This may partly reflect the evolving understanding of how best to design and report RCTs evaluating nonpharmacological interventions.24 The RCTs published after 1992 met many of the CLEAR NPT quality criteria.30,31,33,38,49,50,54,56,61,64,94,97,112,123,127 Only 22 of the 103 RCTs provided a sample size justification.29-32,35,39,40,42,44-57 Many negative trials were likely underpowered to detect either clinically important differences or equivalence of the treatments they compared.25
The paucity of high-quality RCTs evaluating pressure ulcer may reflect differences between regulatory requirements for medications vs pressure ulcer treatments such as dressings. Prescription medications must have demonstrated efficacy and safety in RCTs prior to attaining approval for marketing. In contrast, since passage of the 1997 Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, dressing manufacturers are not required to submit evidence of safety or effectiveness to the US Food and Drug Administration before marketing a new product.142 Similar regulations are in place in other countries.143 This situation raises concerns analogous to those highlighted by the lack of regulation for vitamins and herbal supplements since passage of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.144
Future RCTs will need to address the methodological deficiencies highlighted in this review. Studies also are needed to develop standardized methods for measuring wounds and reporting healing rates.19 Pressure ulcers may be too complex to successfully treat using a single modality.145 Trials of multifactorial wound care interventions (eg, a combination of repositioning and local wound care) should be considered to determine whether they offer advantages over simpler interventions.
Our review has limitations. First, it was restricted to RCTs because they provide the best evidence of treatment efficacy. This is especially important given the multifaceted nature of pressure ulcer treatments and the importance of controlling for co-interventions. Nonetheless, evidence from nonrandomized trials also may provide insights into treatment benefits and risks. Second, we also restricted our review to trials published in the English language. Our examination of non-English trials suggests that including these trials would not have altered our results.
Third, we examined RCTs in a variety of settings. Results of some RCTs may not be generalizable to other populations. Comparing trials was complicated by the fact that different staging systems were used to categorize pressure ulcer severity. Finally, we likely underestimated information about potential conflicts of interest because many journals only recently began publishing this information.
Relatively few RCTs evaluating pressure ulcer treatments follow standard criteria for reporting nonpharmacological interventions. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of many commonly used treatments. There is little evidence from RCTs to justify the use of 1 support surface or dressing over alternatives. Similarly, there is little evidence to justify the routine use of nutritional supplements, biological agents, and adjunctive therapies compared with standard care. Clinicians should make decisions regarding pressure ulcer therapy based on fundamental wound care principles, cost, ease of use, and patient preference.
Corresponding Author: Madhuri Reddy, MD, MSc, Hebrew Rehabilitation Center, 1200 Center St, Boston, MA 02131 (Madhuri.Reddy@hrca.harvard.edu).
Author Contributions: Dr Reddy had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Reddy, Gill, Rochon.
Acquisition of data: Reddy, Kalkar, Wu.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Reddy, Gill, Kalkar, Wu, Anderson, Rochon.
Drafting of the manuscript: Reddy.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Gill, Kalkar, Wu, Anderson, Rochon.
Statistical analysis: Gill, Kalkar, Wu.
Obtained funding: Rochon.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Kalkar, Wu, Anderson.
Study supervision: Rochon.
Financial Disclosures: Dr Reddy reported receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Smith and Nephew, Molynlycke, and Merck. No other authors reported financial disclosures.
Funding/Support: This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement grant H0A-80075. Dr Gill was supported by an Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Career Scientist Award.
Role of the Sponsors: The funding organizations did not participate in the design or conduct of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Additional Contributions: We thank Gary Sibbald, BSc, MD, MEd, FRCPC (Division of Dermatology, University of Toronto, and Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and Joyce Black, PhD, RN (National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing, Omaha) for their review of the manuscript. Neither Dr Sibbald nor Dr Black received any compensation for their contributions. Dr Sibbald reported being a consultant, speaker, or researcher for Smith and Nephew, 3M, ConvaTec, Molnlycke, Coloplast, Tyco, Johnson & Johnson, and KCI. Dr Black reported being a consultant for Gaymar Industries, HillRom, and Sage Products.
Cuddigan J, Frantz RA. Pressure ulcer research: pressure ulcer treatment: a monograph from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Adv Wound Care
. 1998;11(6):294-30010326346PubMedGoogle Scholar
Whitney J, Phillips L, Aslam R,
et al. Guidelines for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Wound Repair Regen
. 2006;14(6):663-67917199832PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Woodbury MG, Houghton PE. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in Canadian healthcare settings. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2004;50(10):22-24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36-3815509880PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brandeis GH, Berlowitz DR, Katz P. Are pressure ulcers preventable? a survey of experts. Adv Skin Wound Care
. 2001;14(5):244,245-24811905972PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ferrell BA, Josephson K, Norvid P, Alcorn H. Pressure ulcers among patients admitted to home care. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 2000;48(9):1042-104710983902PubMedGoogle Scholar
Nelson EA, Bradley M. Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2003;1(1):CD00183612535417PubMedGoogle Scholar
Palfreyman SJ, Nelson EA, Lochiel R, Michaels JA. Dressings for healing venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2006;3:CD00110316855958PubMedGoogle Scholar
Adderley U, Smith R. Topical agents and dressings for fungating wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2007;2(2):CD00394817443534PubMedGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate D. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2004;2(2):CD00355415106207PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reddy M, Cabico L, Rochon P. The prevalence of skin breakdown in long-term care residents when transferred to acute care. Can J Geriatr
. 2005;8(2):50-54Google Scholar
Kuhn BA, Coulter SJ. Balancing the pressure ulcer cost and quality equation. Nurs Econ
. 1992;10(5):353-3591465158PubMedGoogle Scholar
Di Giulio P, Saiani L, Laquintana D,
et al. A double blind randomised clinical trial to assess the efficacy of the treatments of the superficial pressure sores [in Italian]. Assist Inferm Ric
. 2004;23(4):201-20815709463PubMedGoogle Scholar
Toba K, Sudoh N, Nagano K,
et al. Randomized prospective trial of gentian violet with dibutyryl cAMP and povidone-iodine with sugar as treatment for pressure sores infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
in elderly patients [in Japanese]. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi
. 1997;34(7):577-5829388378PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA
. 2003;290(7):921-92812928469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sibbald RG, Williamson D, Orsted H,
et al. Preparing the wound bed-debridement, bacterial balance, and moisture balance. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2000;46(11):14-3511889735PubMedGoogle Scholar
Thomas DR, Rodeheaver GT, Bartolucci AA,
et al. Pressure ulcer scale for healing: derivation and validation of the PUSH tool. Adv Wound Care
. 1997;10(5):96-101Google Scholar
Flanagan M. Improving accuracy of wound measurement in clinical practice. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2003;49(10):28-4014652419PubMedGoogle Scholar
van Rijswijk L. Full-thickness leg ulcers: patient demographics and predictors of healing. J Fam Pract
. 1993;36(6):625-6328505605PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lassere MN, Johnson KR, Boers M,
et al. Definitions and validation criteria for biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: development and testing of a quantitative hierarchical levels of evidence schema. J Rheumatol
. 2007;34(3):607-61517343307PubMedGoogle Scholar
Stotts NA, Rodeheaver GT, Thomas DR,
et al. An instrument to measure healing in pressure ulcers: development and validation of the pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
. 2001;56(12):M795-M79911723157PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bates-Jensen BM, Vredevoe DL, Brecht ML. Validity and reliability of the Pressure Sore Status Tool. Decubitus
. 1992;5(6):20-281489512PubMedGoogle Scholar
Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P. A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol
. 2005;58(12):1233-124016291467PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA
. 2002;288(3):358-36212117401PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schaum KD. Special report: payment perspective: pressure-reducing support surfaces. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2005;51(2):36,9615699553PubMedGoogle Scholar
van Rijswijk L. Ingredient-based wound dressing classification: a paradigm that is passé and in need of replacement. J Wound Care
. 2006;15(1):11-1416669298PubMedGoogle Scholar
Groen HW, Groenier KH, Schuling J. Comparative study of a foam mattress and a water mattress. J Wound Care
. 1999;8(7):333-33510776222PubMedGoogle Scholar
Russell L, Reynolds TM, Towns A, Worth W, Greenman A, Turner R. Randomized comparison trial of the RIK and the Nimbus 3 mattresses. Br J Nurs
. 2003;12(4):254,256-25912671572PubMedGoogle Scholar
Püllen R, Popp R, Volkers P, Fusgen I. Prospective randomized double-blind study of the wound-debriding effects of collagenase and fibrinolysin/deoxyribonuclease in pressure ulcers. Age Ageing
. 2002;31(2):126-13011937475PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Colin D, Kurring PA, Yvon C. Managing sloughy pressure sores. J Wound Care
. 1996;5(10):444-4469117814PubMedGoogle Scholar
Rees RS, Robson MC, Smiell JM, Perry BH. Becaplermin gel in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Wound Repair Regen
. 1999;7(3):141-14710417749PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Guthrie M. A randomized double-blind clinical study of Dermagran dual therapeutic system in the treatment of decubitus ulcers. Wounds
. 1988;1:142-154Google Scholar
Belmin J, Meaume S, Rabus M, Bohbot S. Sequential treatment with calcium alginate dressings and hydrocolloid dressings accelerates pressure ulcer healing in older subjects: a multicenter randomized trial of sequential vs nonsequential treatment with hydrocolloid dressings alone. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 2002;50(2):269-27412028208PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Day A, Dombranski S, Farkas C,
et al. Managing sacral pressure ulcers with hydrocolloid dressings: results of a controlled, clinical study. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 1995;41(2):52-657598778PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hondé C, Derks C, Tudor D. Local treatment of pressure sores in the elderly: amino acid copolymer membrane vs hydrocolloid dressing. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 1994;42(11):1180-11837525682PubMedGoogle Scholar
Burgos A, Gimenez J, Moreno E,
et al. Collagenase ointment application at 24- vs 48-hour intervals in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a randomised multicentre study. Clin Drug Investig
. 2000;19(6):399-407Google ScholarCrossref
Russell L, Reynolds TM, Carr J, Evans A, Holmes M. Randomised controlled trial of two pressure-relieving systems. J Wound Care
. 2000;9(2):52-5511933280PubMedGoogle Scholar
Nixon J, Cranny G, Iglesias C,
et al. Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces) trial. BMJ
. 2006;332(7555):1413-141516740530PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Day A, Leonard F. Seeking quality care for patients with pressure ulcers. Decubitus
. 1993;6(1):32-438427642PubMedGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal MJ, Felton RM, Nastasi AE, Naliboff BD, Harker J, Navach JH. Healing of advanced pressure ulcers by a generic total contact seat: 2 randomized comparisons with low air loss bed treatments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
. 2003;84(12):1733-174214669176PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Dehlin O, Elmstahl S, Gottrup F. Monochromatic phototherapy in elderly patients: a new way of treating chronic pressure ulcers? Aging Clin Exp Res
. 2003;15(3):259-263Google ScholarCrossref
Allman RM, Walker JM, Hart MK, Laprade CA, Noel LB, Smith CR. Air-fluizided beds or conventional therapy for pressure sores: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med
. 1987;107(5):641-6483310792PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ferrell BA, Osterweil D, Christenson P. A randomized trial of low-air-loss beds for treatment of pressure ulcers. JAMA
. 1993;269(4):494-4978338511PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Land L, Evans D, Geary A, Taylor C. A clinical evaluation of an alternating-pressure mattress replacement system in hospital and residential care settings. J Tissue Viability
. 2000;10(1):6-1110839090PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lucas C, van Gemert MJC, de Haan RJ. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the management of stage III decubitus ulcers: a prospective, observer-blinded multicentre randomised clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci
. 2003;18(2):72-7712928815PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Müller E, van Leen MW, Bergemann R. Economic evaluation of collagenase-containing ointment and hydrocolloid dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Pharmacoeconomics
. 2001;19(12):1209-121611772156PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sayag J, Meaume S, Bohbot S. Healing properties of calcium alginate dressings. J Wound Care
. 1996;5(8):357-3628954425PubMedGoogle Scholar
Graumlich JF, Blough LS, McLaughlin RG,
et al. Healing pressure ulcers with collagen or hydrocolloid: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 2003;51(2):147-15412558709PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Small N, Mulder M, Mackenzie MJ, Nel M. A comparative analysis of pressure sore treatment modalities in community settings. Curationis
. 2002;25(1):74-8212096575PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hollisaz MT, Khedmat H, Yari F. A randomized clinical trial comparing hydrocolloid, phenytoin and simple dressings for the treatment of pressure ulcers. BMC Dermatol
. 2004;4(1):1815601464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Adunsky A, Ohry A. Decubitus direct current treatment (DDCT) of pressure ulcers: results of a randomized double-blinded placebo controlled study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr
. 2005;41(3):261-26915998547PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kraft MR, Lawson L, Pohlmann B, Reid Lokos C, Barder L. A comparison of Epi-Lock and saline dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Decubitus
. 1993;6(6):42-488286026PubMedGoogle Scholar
Subbanna PK, Margaret Shanti FX, Tharion G,
et al. Topical phenytoin solution for treating pressure ulcers: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Spinal Cord
. 2007;45(11):739-74317279096PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sipponen A, Jokinen JJ, Sipponen P, Papp A, Sarna S, Lohi J. Beneficial effect of resin salve in treatment of severe pressure ulcers: a prospective, randomized and controlled multicentre trial. Br J Dermatol
. 2008;158(5):1055-106218284391PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Branom R. “Constant force technology” vs low-air-loss therapy in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2001;47(9):38-4611889743PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mulder GD, Taro N, Seeley JE, Andrews K. A study of pressure ulcer response to low air loss beds vs conventional treatment. J Geriatr Dermatol
. 1994;2(3):87-91Google Scholar
Evans D, Land L, Geary A. A clinical evaluation of the Nimbus 3 alternating pressure mattress replacement system. J Wound Care
. 2000;9(4):181-18611933303PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lee SK, Posthauer ME, Dorner B, Redovian V, Maloney MJ. Pressure ulcer healing with a concentrated, fortified, collagen protein hydrolysate supplement: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Skin Wound Care
. 2006;19(2):92-9616557055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Desneves KJ, Todorovic BE, Cassar A, Crowe TC. Treatment with supplementary arginine, vitamin C and zinc in patients with pressure ulcers: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Nutr
. 2005;24(6):979-98716297506PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Benati G, Delvecchio S, Cilla D, Pedone V. Impact on pressure ulcer healing of an arginine-enriched nutritional solution in patients with severe cognitive impairment. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl
. 2001;7:43-47Google ScholarCrossref
ter Riet G, Kessels AG, Knipschild PG. Randomized clinical trial of ascorbic acid in the treatment of pressure ulcers. J Clin Epidemiol
. 1995;48(12):1453-14608543959PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Myers SA, Takiguchi S, Slavish S, Rose CL. Consistent wound care and nutritional support in treatment. Decubitus
. 1990;3(3):16-282119183PubMedGoogle Scholar
Taylor TV, Rimmer S, Day B, Butcher J, Dymock IW. Ascorbic acid supplementation in the treatment of pressure sores. Lancet
. 1974;2(7880):544-5464140267PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Norris JR, Reymolds RE. The effect of oral zinc sulfate therapy on decubitus ulcers. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 1971;19(9):793-797Google Scholar
Alvarez OM, Fernandez-Obregon A, Rogers RS, Bergamo L, Masso J, Black M. A prospective, randomized, comparative study of collagenase and papain-urea for pressure ulcer debridement. Wounds
. 2002;14(8):293-301Google Scholar
Burgos A, Gimenez J, Moreno E,
et al. Cost, efficacy, efficiency and tolerability of collagenase ointment vs hydrocolloid occlusive dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a comparative, randomised, multicentre study. Clin Drug Investig
. 2000;19(5):357-365Google ScholarCrossref
Mulder GD, Altman M, Seeley JE, Tintle T. Prospective randomized study of the efficacy of hydrogel, hydrocolloid, and saline solution-moistened dressings on the management of pressure ulcers. Wound Repair Regen
. 1993;1(4):213-21817166097PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Parish LC, Collins E. Decubitus ulcers: a comparative study. Cutis
. 1979;23(1):106-110215386PubMedGoogle Scholar
Amione P, Ricci E, Topo F,
et al. Comparison of allevyn adhesive and biatain adhesive in the management of pressure ulcers. J Wound Care
. 2005;14(8):365-37016178291PubMedGoogle Scholar
Price P, Bale S, Crook H, Harding KG. The effect of a radiant heat dressing on pressure ulcers. J Wound Care
. 2000;9(4):201-20511933306PubMedGoogle Scholar
Engdahl E. Clinical evaluation of Debrisan on pressure sores. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp
. 1980;28(3):377-380Google Scholar
Brown-Etris M, Milne C, Orsted H,
et al. A prospective, randomized, multisite clinical evaluation of a transparent absorbent acrylic dressing and a hydrocolloid dressing in the management of stage II and shallow stage III pressure ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care
. 2008;21(4):169-17418385577PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Motta G, Dunham L, Dye T, Mentz J, O'Connell-Gifford E, Smith E. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a new synthetic polymer sheet wound dressing. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 1999;45(10):41,44-4910687651PubMedGoogle Scholar
Seeley J, Jensen JL, Hutcherson J. A randomized clinical study comparing a hydrocellular dressing to a hydrocolloid dressing in the management of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 1999;45(6):39-4710655861PubMedGoogle Scholar
Darkovich SL, Brown-Etris M, Spencer M. Biofilm hydrogel dressing: a clinical evaluation in the treatment of pressure sores. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 1990;29:47-602202317PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sopata M, Luczak J, Ciupinska M. Effect of bacteriological status on pressure ulcer healing in patients with advanced cancer. J Wound Care
. 2002;11(3):107-11011933727PubMedGoogle Scholar
Yastrub DJ. Relationship between type of treatment and degree of wound healing among institutionalized geriatric patients with stage II pressure ulcers. Care Manag J
. 2004;5(4):213-21816294574PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kim YC, Shin JC, Park CI, Oh SH, Choi SM, Kim YS. Efficacy of hydrocolloid occlusive dressing technique in decubitus ulcer treatment: a comparative study. Yonsei Med J
. 1996;37(3):181-1858826783PubMedGoogle Scholar
Seaman S, Herbster S, Muglia J, Murray M, Rick C. Simplifying modern wound management for nonprofessional caregivers. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2000;46(8):18-2711189544PubMedGoogle Scholar
Matzen S, Peschcardt A, Alsbjorn B. A new amorphous hydrocolloid for the treatment of pressure sores: a randomised controlled study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg
. 1999;33(1):13-1510207960PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chang KW, Alsagoff S, Ong KT, Sim PH. Pressure ulcers-randomised controlled trial comparing hydrocolloid and saline gauze dressings. Med J Malaysia
. 1998;53(4):428-43110971989PubMedGoogle Scholar
Thomas DR, Goode PS, LaMaster K, Tennyson T. Acemannan hydrogel dressing vs saline dressing for pressure ulcers: a randomized, controlled trial. Adv Wound Care
. 1998;11(6):273-27610326343PubMedGoogle Scholar
Colwell JC, Foreman MD, Trotter JP. A comparison of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two methods of managing pressure ulcers. Decubitus
. 1993;6(4):28-36Google Scholar
Xakellis GC, Chrischilles EA. Hydrocolloid vs saline-gauze dressings in treating pressure ulcers: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
. 1992;73(5):463-4691580775PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brod M, McHenry E, Plasse TF, Fedorczyk D, Trout JR. A randomized comparison of poly-hema and hydrocolloid dressings for treatment of pressure sores. Arch Dermatol
. 1990;126(7):969-9702193631PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Oleske DM, Smith XP, White P, Pottage J, Donovan MI. A randomized clinical trial of two dressing methods for the treatment of low-grade pressure ulcers. J Enterostomal Ther
. 1986;13(3):90-983519718PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sebern MD. Pressure ulcer management in home health care: efficacy and cost effectiveness of moisture vapor permeable dressing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
. 1986;67(10):726-7293533007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rhodes RS, Heyneman CA, Culbertson VL, Wilson SE, Phatak HM. Topical phenytoin treatment of stage II decubitus ulcers in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother
. 2001;35(6):675-68111408983PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Yapucu Günes U, Eser I. Effectiveness of a honey dressing for healing pressure ulcers. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs
. 2007;34(2):184-19017413836PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kaya AZ, Turani N, Akyuz M. The effectiveness of a hydrogel dressing compared with standard management of pressure ulcers. J Wound Care
. 2005;14(1):42-4415656468PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gerding GA, Browning JS. Oxyquinoline-containing ointment vs standard therapy for stage I and stage II skin lesions. Dermatol Nurs
. 1992;4(5):389-3981482629PubMedGoogle Scholar
Moberg S, Hoffman L, Grennert ML, Holst A. A randomized trial of cadexomer iodine in decubitus ulcers. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 1983;31(8):462-4656688261PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shamimi NK, Karimian R, Nasli E,
et al. Topical application of Semelil (ANGIPARS) in treatment of pressure ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. DARU
. 2008;16(suppl 1):54-57Google Scholar
Thomas DR, Diebold MR, Eggemeyer LM. A controlled, randomized, comparative study of a radiant heat bandage on the healing of stage 3-4 pressure ulcers: a pilot study. J Am Med Dir Assoc
. 2005;6(1):46-4915871870PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Meaume S, Van de Looverbosch D, Heyman H, Romanelli M, Ciangherotti A, Charpin S. A study to compare a new self-adherent soft silicone dressing with a self-adherent polymer dressing in stage II pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2003;49(9):44-51Google Scholar
Kloth LC, Berman JE, Nett M, Papanek PE, Dumit-Minkel S. A randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effects of noncontact normothermic wound therapy on chronic full-thickness pressure ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care
. 2002;15(6):270-27612477979PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kuflik A, Stillo JV, Sanders D, Roland K, Sweeney T, Lemke PM. Petrolatum vs resurfix ointment in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 2001;47(2):52-5611235499PubMedGoogle Scholar
Whitney JD, Salvadalena G, Higa L, Mich M. Treatment of pressure ulcers with noncontact normothermic wound therapy: healing and warming effects. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs
. 2001;28(5):244-25211557928PubMedGoogle Scholar
LeVasseur SA, Helme RD. A double-blind clinical trial to compare the efficacy of an active based cream F14001 against a placebo non-active based cream for the treatment of pressure ulcers in a poplulation of elderly subjects. J Adv Nurs
. 1991;16(8):952-9561779084PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Knudsen L, Sovhoj L, Christensen B. The use of a haemodialysate in the treatment of decubital ulcer: a double-blind randomized clinical study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp
. 1982;32(3):498-504Google Scholar
Van Ort SR, Gerber RM. Topical application of insulin in the treatment of decubitus ulcers: a pilot study. Nurs Res
. 1976;25(1):9-121107960PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reichert-Pénétrat S, Barbaud A, Weber M, Schmutz JL. Leg ulcers: allergologic studies of 359 cases [in French]. Ann Dermatol Venereol
. 1999;126(2):131-13510352827PubMedGoogle Scholar
Saap L, Fahim S, Arsenault E,
et al. Contact sensitivity in patients with leg ulcerations: a North American study. Arch Dermatol
. 2004;140(10):1241-124615492187PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Nisi G, Brandi C, Grimaldi L, Calabro M, D'Aniello C. Use of a protease-modulating matrix in the treatment of pressure sores. Chir Ital
. 2005;57(4):465-46816060184PubMedGoogle Scholar
Payne WG, Wright TE, Ochs D,
et al. An exploratory study of dermal replacement therapy in the treatment of stage III pressure ulcers. J Appl Res
. 2004;4(1):12-23Google Scholar
Mustoe TA, Cutler NR, Allman RM,
et al. A phase II study to evaluate recombinant platelet-derived growth factor-BB in the treatment of stage 3 and 4 pressure ulcers. Arch Surg
. 1994;129(2):213-2198304833PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Robson MC, Phillips LG, Thomason A, Robson LE, Pierce GF. Platelet-derived growth factor BB for the treatment of chronic pressure ulcers. Lancet
. 1992;339(8784):23-251345953PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Landi F, Aloe L, Russo A,
et al. Topical treatment of pressure ulcers with nerve growth factor: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med
. 2003;139(8):635-64114568851PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hirshberg J, Coleman J, Marchant B, Rees RS. TGF-beta3 in the treatment of pressure ulcers: a preliminary report. Adv Skin Wound Care
. 2001;14(2):91-9511899912PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Robson MC, Hill DP, Smith PD,
et al. Sequential cytokine therapy for pressure ulcers: clinical and mechanistic response. Ann Surg
. 2000;231(4):600-61110749622PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Robson MC, Phillips LG, Lawrence WT,
et al. The safety and effect of topically applied recombinant basic fibroblast growth factor on the healing of chronic pressure sores. Ann Surg
. 1992;216(4):401-4061417189PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wanner MB, Schwarzl F, Strub B, Zaech GA, Pierer G. Vacuum-assisted wound closure for cheaper and more comfortable healing of pressure sores: a prospective study. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg
. 2003;37(1):28-3312625392PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ford CN, Reinhard ER, Yeh D,
et al. Interim analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure vs the healthpoint system in the management of pressure ulcers. Ann Plast Surg
. 2002;49(1):55-6112142596PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Adegoke BO, Badmos KA. Acceleration of pressure ulcer healing in spinal cord injured patients using interrupted direct current. Afr J Med Med Sci
. 2001;30(3):195-19714510128PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wood JM, Evans PE, Schallreuter KU,
et al. A multicenter study on the use of pulsed low-intensity direct current for healing chronic stage II and stage III decubitus ulcers. Arch Dermatol
. 1993;129(8):999-10098352625PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Griffin JW, Tooms RE, Mendius RA, Clifft JK, Vander Zwaag R, el-Zeky F. Efficacy of high voltage pulsed current for healing of pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury. Phys Ther
. 1991;71(6):433-442Google Scholar
Asbjornsen G, Hernaes B, Molvaer G. The effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on pressure sores in geriatric patients. J Clin Exp Gerontol
. 1990;12(4):209-214Google Scholar
Kloth LC, Feedar JA. Acceleration of wound healing with high voltage, monophasic, pulsed current. Phys Ther
. 1988;68(4):503-5083258429PubMedGoogle Scholar
ter Riet G, Kessels AG, Knipschild P. Randomised clinical trial of ultrasound treatment for pressure ulcers. BMJ
. 1995;310(6986):1040-10417728058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
McDiarmid T, Burns PN, Lewith GT, Machin D. Ultrasound and the treatment of pressure sores. Physiotherapy
. 1985;71(2):66-70Google Scholar
Salzberg CA, Cooper-Vastola SA, Perez F, Viehbeck MG, Byrne DW. The effects of non-thermal pulsed electromagnetic energy on wound healing of pressure ulcers in spinal cord-injured patients: a randomized, double-blind study. Ostomy Wound Manage
. 1995;41(3):42-517546114PubMedGoogle Scholar
Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea S. The effect of Diapulse therapy on the healing of decubitus ulcer. Rom J Physiol
. 1993;30(1-2):41-457982015PubMedGoogle Scholar
Taly AB, Sivaraman Nair KP, Murali T, John A. Efficacy of multiwavelength light therapy in the treatment of pressure ulcers in subjects with disorders of the spinal cord: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
. 2004;85(10):1657-166115468027PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Iordanou P, Baltopoulos G, Giannakopoulou M, Bellou P, Ktenas E. Effect of polarized light in the healing process of pressure ulcers. Int J Nurs Pract
. 2002;8(1):49-5511831427PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schubert V. Effects of phototherapy on pressure ulcer healing in elderly patients after a falling trauma: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
. 2001;17(1):32-3811169174PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wills EE, Anderson TW, Beattie BL, Scott A. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of ultraviolet light in the treatment of superficial pressure sores. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 1983;31(3):131-1336338091PubMedGoogle Scholar
Burke DT, Ho CH, Saucier MA, Stewart G. Effects of hydrotherapy on pressure ulcer healing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
. 1998;77(5):394-3989798830PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Shamimi NK, Heshmat R, Karimian R,
et al. Intravenous Semelil (ANGIPARS) as a novel therapy for pressure ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. DARU
. 2008;16:(suppl 1)
Nussbaum EL, Biemann I, Mustard B. Comparison of ultrasound/ultraviolet-C and laser for treatment of pressure ulcers in patients with spinal cord injury. Phys Ther
. 1994;74(9):812-8238066108PubMedGoogle Scholar
Banwell H. What is the evidence for tissue regeneration impairment when using a formulation of PVP-I antiseptic on open wounds? Dermatology
. 2006;212:(suppl 1)
Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V,
et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen
. 2003;11:(suppl 2)
Niedner R. Cytotoxicity and sensitization of povidone-iodine and other frequently used anti-infective agents. Dermatology
. 1997;195:(suppl 2)
Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, Krahn JF, Peinemann F, Lange S. Negative pressure wound therapy: a vacuum of evidence? Arch Surg
. 2008;143(2):189-19618283145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kranke P, Bennett M, Roeckl-Wiedmann I, Debus S. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
. 2004;2(2):CD00412315106239PubMedGoogle Scholar
Roeckl-Wiedmann I, Bennett M, Kranke P. Systematic review of hyperbaric oxygen in the management of chronic wounds. Br J Surg
. 2005;92(1):24-3215635604PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy. Health Technol Assess
. 2001;5(9):1-22111368833PubMedGoogle Scholar
US Food and Drug Administration. Information from FDA on dressings with drugs (April 1, 2007). http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/briefing/2005. Accessed November 3, 2007
Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA. Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 2007;55(5):780-79117493201PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref