Network Meta-Analysis of Wound Dressings and Their Effectiveness in Promoting Healing
Dublin Core
Title
Network Meta-Analysis of Wound Dressings and Their Effectiveness in Promoting Healing
Subject
Dressings; network meta-analysis; wound; wound care; wound
healing
healing
Description
Background: Chronic and acute wounds affect millions of individuals worldwide,
placing a substantial burden on patients and healthcare systems. Previous
evaluations have often focused on limited types of dressings or specific wound
conditions. Therefore, a comprehensive network meta-analysis is essential for
comparing various interventions, bridging knowledge gaps, improving healing
outcomes, and addressing clinical and economic challenges.
Purpose: This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of advanced
wound dressings in promoting healing.
Methods: This network meta-analysis, registered with PROSPERO
(CRD42023433268), systematically searched PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, CINAHL,
ScienceDirect, Springer Nature, Wiley, Cochrane Library, and Taylor & Francis from
January 2012 to December 2022. Eight reviewers independently assessed and
extracted data from randomized controlled trials evaluating different dressings,
including placebo, alginate, collagen, gamat, honey, hyaluronic acid, hydrocolloid,
hydrogel, mebo, platelet-rich plasma, povidone-iodine, and silver sulfadiazine. Data
were synthesized using a random-effects network meta-analysis with SUCRA
rankings. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane RoB2, and certainty of
evidence was assessed through CINeMA.
Results: This review included 38 RCTs with a total of 4,049 patients. The largest
placebo group comprised 1,628 participants, while the smallest group was mebo
with 10 participants. Heterogeneity and consistency analysis showed negligible
variation (χ2=1.757, p=0.78). Alginate dressings were the most effective in reducing
wound size compared to placebo (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38–1.08; SUCRA probability
0.73), whereas hyaluronic acid dressings were the least effective (OR 0.22; 95% CI
0.06–0.79; SUCRA probability 0.08).
Conclusion: Alginate was identified as the most effective primary dressing for
wound healing, while hyaluronic acid dressings were the least effective. However,
clinical practitioners should carefully weigh the benefits and limitations of each
dressing type before selecting the most appropriate treatment for patients.
placing a substantial burden on patients and healthcare systems. Previous
evaluations have often focused on limited types of dressings or specific wound
conditions. Therefore, a comprehensive network meta-analysis is essential for
comparing various interventions, bridging knowledge gaps, improving healing
outcomes, and addressing clinical and economic challenges.
Purpose: This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of advanced
wound dressings in promoting healing.
Methods: This network meta-analysis, registered with PROSPERO
(CRD42023433268), systematically searched PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, CINAHL,
ScienceDirect, Springer Nature, Wiley, Cochrane Library, and Taylor & Francis from
January 2012 to December 2022. Eight reviewers independently assessed and
extracted data from randomized controlled trials evaluating different dressings,
including placebo, alginate, collagen, gamat, honey, hyaluronic acid, hydrocolloid,
hydrogel, mebo, platelet-rich plasma, povidone-iodine, and silver sulfadiazine. Data
were synthesized using a random-effects network meta-analysis with SUCRA
rankings. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane RoB2, and certainty of
evidence was assessed through CINeMA.
Results: This review included 38 RCTs with a total of 4,049 patients. The largest
placebo group comprised 1,628 participants, while the smallest group was mebo
with 10 participants. Heterogeneity and consistency analysis showed negligible
variation (χ2=1.757, p=0.78). Alginate dressings were the most effective in reducing
wound size compared to placebo (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38–1.08; SUCRA probability
0.73), whereas hyaluronic acid dressings were the least effective (OR 0.22; 95% CI
0.06–0.79; SUCRA probability 0.08).
Conclusion: Alginate was identified as the most effective primary dressing for
wound healing, while hyaluronic acid dressings were the least effective. However,
clinical practitioners should carefully weigh the benefits and limitations of each
dressing type before selecting the most appropriate treatment for patients.
Creator
Asmat Burhan1
, Indah Susanti1
, Vanessa A. Breu Da Silva2, Vijay Kumar3, Do Thi Kim Chi4,
Riski Hidayat5, Septian Mixrova Sebayang1
, Hamka Hamka6
, Indah Susanti1
, Vanessa A. Breu Da Silva2, Vijay Kumar3, Do Thi Kim Chi4,
Riski Hidayat5, Septian Mixrova Sebayang1
, Hamka Hamka6
Source
https://doi.org/10.14710/nmjn.v15i2.67063
Date
30 August 2025
Contributor
peri irawan
Format
pdf
Type
english
Files
Collection
Citation
Asmat Burhan1
, Indah Susanti1
, Vanessa A. Breu Da Silva2, Vijay Kumar3, Do Thi Kim Chi4,
Riski Hidayat5, Septian Mixrova Sebayang1
, Hamka Hamka6, “Network Meta-Analysis of Wound Dressings and Their Effectiveness in Promoting Healing,” Repository Horizon University Indonesia, accessed February 21, 2026, https://repository.horizon.ac.id/items/show/11325.