Repositioning for pressure injury prevention in adults: An abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Citation metadata

Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
Document Type: Report
Length: 601 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords Pressure ulcer; repositioning; randomised controlled trial; systematic review; meta-analysis; cost-effectiveness Abstract Background A pressure injury is an area of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissues. Patient repositioning is an important prevention strategy, as those with limited mobility are at increased risk of developing pressure injury. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of repositioning schedules on the prevention of pressure injury in adults. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid) and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus (EBSCO) were searched in February 2019. No restrictions were applied to language or date of publication. Review methods Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials including cluster trials, published or unpublished, and undertaken in any healthcare setting that assessed the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of repositioning schedules for prevention of pressure injury in adults. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by three authors. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I.sup.2 statistic, and the pooled risk ratios along with their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using either fixed and random effects models, as indicated. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to appraise the certainty of evidence. Results Eight eligible trials involving 3,941 participants published between 2004 and 2018 were identified. Trials compared either different repositioning frequencies or positioning regimens. Three trials (1074 participants) compared 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning (risk ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.41; I.sup.2 = 45%). Two other trials (252 participants) compared a 30-degree tilt with a 90-degree tilt (risk ratio0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.97; I.sup.2 =69%). Only two trials included economic analyses, both amongst nursing home residents. One study estimated the costs of repositioning to be Canadian dollars $11.05 and Canadian dollars $16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimens, respectively, when compared to 2-hourly regimen. The second study reported 3-hourly repositioning using a 30-degree tilt to cost [euro]46.50 (95% confidence interval [euro]1.25 to [euro]74.60) less per patient in nursing time compared with 6-hourly repositioning with a 90-degree lateral rotation. Conclusion It remains unclear which repositioning frequencies or positions are most effective in preventing pressure injury in adults. There is limited evidence to support the cost effectiveness of repositioning frequencies and positions. Registration: Cochrane protocol published in 2012. Author Affiliation: (a) NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Queensland, Australia (b) Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast Health, Southport, Australia (c) School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Brisbane and Gold Coast, Australia (d) Division of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Australia (e) Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom (f) Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia * Corresponding author at: School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Gold Coast Queensland. Article History: Received 17 March 2021; Revised 27 April 2021; Accepted 1 May 2021 (footnote) This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2020, Issue 6, DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub3 (see www.cochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Byline: Brigid M Gillespie [b.gillespie@grifith.edu.au] (a,b,c,*), Rachel M Walker (a,c,d), Sharon L Latimer (a,b,c), Lukman Thalib (a), Jennifer A Whitty (e), Elizabeth McInnes (a,f), Ishtar Lockwood (a), Wendy P Chaboyer (a,c)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A667643831