Table 7 Overall quality assessment of primary studies and main conclusions of systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy
Systematic review | Quality assessment conducted: yes/no and outcome* | Main conclusion (direct quote) |
|---|---|---|
Samson/AHRQ 2004 [29] | Yes. 6× poor in quality | "The body of evidence is insufficient to support conclusions about the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of wounds." |
Costa/MUHC TAU 2005/[30] | No | "Consequently, we agree with the conclusions of the previous technology assessment reports and systematic reviews [29, 55, 57, 60, 63, 64] that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of this technology." |
IQWiG [8] | Yes. 17× poor in quality | "There are at present no results of adequate reliability which provide proof of the superiority of NPWT in comparison with conventional therapy and which would justify broad use of this method outside clinical trial settings." |
Pham/ASERNIP-S 2006 update [31] | No | "There is a paucity of high-quality RCTs on TNP for wound management with sufficient sample size and adequate power to detect any differences between TNP and standard dressings.". |
OHTAC [32] | Yes. 1× moderate; 3× low; 2× very low overall quality | "Based on the evidence to date, the clinical effectiveness of NPWT to heal wounds is unclear." |