Prevalence and incidence of chronic wounds and related complications: a protocol for a systematic review

Krister Järbrink, Gao Ni, Henrik Sönnergren, Artur Schmidtchen, Caroline Pang, Ram Bajpai, Josip Car, Krister Järbrink, Gao Ni, Henrik Sönnergren, Artur Schmidtchen, Caroline Pang, Ram Bajpai, Josip Car

Abstract

Background: Chronic wounds impose a significant and often underappreciated burden to the individual, the healthcare system and the society as a whole. Preliminary literature search suggests that there are at present no reliable estimates on the total prevalence of chronic wounds for different settings and categories of chronic wounds. Such information is essential for policy and planning purposes as the increasing number of elderly and the prevalence of lifestyle diseases point in the direction of an increased burden. Knowledge about the prevalence and incidence of chronic wounds in relation to population characteristics is important for informing healthcare planning and resource allocation. The objective is to present a transparent process for how to review the existing literature on the prevalence and incidence rates of chronic wounds and resulting implications.

Methods/design: We will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the EBM Reviews and Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Global Health) and reference lists of included articles. Two investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts and select studies involving adults with chronic wounds. These investigators will also independently extract data using a pre-designed data extraction form that will cover information on demographics, diagnostics including disease prevalence, medical history, hospital and community-based management and outcomes. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed to address the heterogeneity across studies. Meta-analysis will also be performed if homogeneous group of studies will be found. The collective evidence will be further stratified according to the important background variables if allowed.

Discussion: This study will describe the available epidemiological evidence and summarise prevalence and incidence rates of chronic wounds and related complications. A better understanding of the relationship between population profile and the prevalence of chronic wounds and related complications will be helpful in the development of guidelines for patient management.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016037355.

Keywords: Amputation; Chronic wounds; Diabetic foot; Epidemiology; Hard-to-heal ulcers; Incidence; Prevalence; Ulcer; Wound healing; Wound infection.

References

    1. Lazarus GS, Cooper DM, Knighton DR, Percoraro RE, Rodeheaver G, Robson MC. Definitions and guidelines for assessment of wounds and evaluation of healing. Wound Repair Regen. 1994;2:165–70. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-475X.1994.20305.x.
    1. Werdin F, Tennenhaus M, Schaller HE, Rennekampff HO. Evidence-based management strategies for treatment of chronic wounds. Eplasty. 2009;9
    1. Mekkes JR, Loots MAM, Van Der Wal AC, Bos JD. Causes, investigation and treatment of leg ulceration. Br J Dermatol. 2003
    1. Cazander G, Pritchard DI, Nigam Y, Jung W, Nibbering PH. Multiple actions of Lucilia sericata larvae in hard‐to‐heal wounds. Bioessays. 2013
    1. The Wound Healing Society . Chronic wound care guidelines. 2006.
    1. Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S, Kirsner R, Lambert L, Hunt TK, et al. Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen. 2009
    1. Gottrup F. A specialized wound-healing center concept: importance of a multidisciplinary department structure and surgical treatment facilities in the treatment of chronic wounds. Am J Surg. 2004;187(5):S38–S43. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00303-9.
    1. Wicke C, Bachinger A, Coerper S, Beckert S, Witte MB, Königsrainer A. Aging influences wound healing in patients with chronic lower extremity wounds treated in a specialized Wound Care Center. Wound Repair Regen. 2009
    1. Kloth L. The roles of physical therapists in wound management, part II: patient and wound evaluation. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec. 2009
    1. Margolis D. Epidemiology of wounds. In: Romanelli M, Shukla V, Mani R, editors. Measurements in Wound Healing. London: Springer; 2013. pp. 145–53.
    1. MacDonald J. Global initiative for wound and lymphoedema care (GIWLC) Journal of Lymphoedema. 2009;4(2):92–5.
    1. Heyer K, Augustin M, Protz K, Herberger K, Spehr C, Rustenbach S. Effectiveness of advanced versus conventional wound dressings on healing of chronic wounds: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatology. 2013
    1. Denny K, Lawand C, Perry S. Compromised wounds in Canada. Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont) 2013;17(1):7–10. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2014.23787.
    1. Posnett J, Franks PJ. The burden of chronic wounds in the UK. Nurs Times. 2008;104(3):44–5.
    1. Graves N, Zheng H. The prevalence and incidence of chronic wounds: a literature review. Wound Practice and Research. 2014;22(1):4–19.
    1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015
    1. The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel – NPUAP. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) announces a change in terminology from pressure ulcer to pressure injury and updates the stages of pressure injury. Washington DC April 13 2016. . Assessed 15 Aug 2016.
    1. Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):123–128. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71.
    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Djulbegovic B, Atkins D, Falck-Ytter Y, Williams JW, Jr, Meerpohl J, Norris SL, Akl EA, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011.
    1. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404–413. doi: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
    1. Chan KY, Wang W, Wu JJ, Liu L, Theodoratou E, Car J, Middleton L, Russ TC, Deary IJ, Campbell H, Rudan I. Epidemiology of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia in China, 1990–2010: a systematic review and analysis. Lancet. 2013
    1. Scott BN, Roberts DJ, Robertson HL, Kramer AH, Laupland KB, Ousman SS, Kubes P, Zygun DA. Incidence, prevalence, and occurrence rate of infection among adults hospitalized after traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst. Rev. 2013
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Front matter, in introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2009.
    1. Higgins JP. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. . Assessed 28 Mar 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe