Heterogeneity of wound outcome measures in RCTs of treatments for VLUs: A systematic review: A systematic review

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) affect up to 4% of the population aged over 65 years. Outcomes of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in VL Us are important to guide clinical and resource decision making. Our objective was to identify what endpoints and wound bed outcomes were assessed in RCTs in VLUs; how these were assessed and what reference was made to validity and reliability of methods used.Method: A systematic review of all full text RCTs, published in English, from 1998-2013.Results: Our criteria were met by 102 studies. There were 78 different endpoints recorded, the majority (n=34) related to healing and were evaluated at 12 different times points. Size was the most frequently reported outcome measure (n=99), with photographs, tissue type, exudate, odour and pain also recorded. There was poor reporting of methods used to assess outcomes. Visual analogue scales predominated as a method of assessment, but 95% of studies made no reference to the validity or reliability of assessment methods.Conclusion: Future research in VLUs requires standards for measuring outcomes with acceptable inter-rater reliability and validated measures of patient-reported outcomes.
Original languageEnglish (Ireland)
Pages (from-to)211-226
Number of pages16
JournalJournal Of Wound Care
Volume24
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2015

Keywords

  • Leg ulcer
  • Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
  • Varicose ulcer
  • Venous stasis ulcer
  • Venous ulcer

Authors (Note for portal: view the doc link for the full list of authors)

  • Authors
  • Gethin, G,Killeen, F,Devane, D
  • Gethin, G. and Killeen, F. and Devane, D.
  • Gethin, G;Killeen, F;Devane, D

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Heterogeneity of wound outcome measures in RCTs of treatments for VLUs: A systematic review: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this