FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Onion extract gel is not better than other topical treatments in scar management: A meta‐analysis from randomised controlled trails

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of onion extract (OE) gel on scar management, a systematic review was performed by searching Embase, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases, and a meta‐analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement guidelines. Finally, 13 randomised controlled trails were enrolled for meta‐analysis. OE gel increased the total improvement scores assessed by investigators (P < .00001) and patients (P < .00001) than no treatment, but no differences were detected between OE gel and other commonly used topical treatments assessed by investigators (P = .56) and patients (P = .39). Moreover, OE in silicone gel increased the total improvement scores assessed by investigators (P < .00001) and patients (P = .0007) than other treatments. OE gel increased the incidence of total adverse effects compared with no treatment (P < .0001) and other treatments (P = .008) by a fixed‐effects model, and increased the incidence of dropping out caused by intolerance of treatments (P = .0002). OE gel not only has no superiority to commonly used topical treatments, but also has the potential to increase the incidence of adverse effects on scar management; OE in silicone gel might be the optimal topical choice for scar treatment; however, more evidences are needed to strength these conclusions.

Onion extract gel is not better than other topical treatments in scar management: A meta‐analysis from randomised controlled trails

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of onion extract (OE) gel on scar management, a systematic review was performed by searching Embase, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library databases, and a meta‐analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement guidelines. Finally, 13 randomised controlled trails were enrolled for meta‐analysis. OE gel increased the total improvement scores assessed by investigators (P < .00001) and patients (P < .00001) than no treatment, but no differences were detected between OE gel and other commonly used topical treatments assessed by investigators (P = .56) and patients (P = .39). Moreover, OE in silicone gel increased the total improvement scores assessed by investigators (P < .00001) and patients (P = .0007) than other treatments. OE gel increased the incidence of total adverse effects compared with no treatment (P < .0001) and other treatments (P = .008) by a fixed‐effects model, and increased the incidence of dropping out caused by intolerance of treatments (P = .0002). OE gel not only has no superiority to commonly used topical treatments, but also has the potential to increase the incidence of adverse effects on scar management; OE in silicone gel might be the optimal topical choice for scar treatment; however, more evidences are needed to strength these conclusions.

Consistency of postoperative pain assessments between nurses and patients undergoing enhanced recovery after gynaecological surgery

Abstract

Aims and objectives

To explore the consistency of pain intensity and pain location assessed by nurses and patients in gynaecology undergoing enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.

Background

Several studies have shown that clinical nurses' assessment of patients' pain is not always accurate. Little is known about the accuracy of nurses' pain assessments for gynaecological patients. Postoperative pain assessment and management is an essential part of enhanced recovery after surgery.

Design

Comparative cross‐sectional study.

Methods

A total of 160 patients were recruited and only 85 patients and 17 nurses participated. Patients and nurses recorded pain scores (using an 11‐point Numeric Rating Scale) and pain location (incision pain, surgical area pain in the abdominal cavity, other pain or no pain) on Pain Assessment Forms at 4 hr after surgery and on the first and second postoperative days. We used the STROBE guidelines to report our study.

Results

The patients' pain score was higher than that of nurses from 4 hr to second day after laparoscopic surgery at rest. The pain scores of both nurses and patients decreased over this period of time. All the intraclass correlation coefficients were between 0.214–0.296. At the three time points, surgical area pain in the abdominal cavity and abdominal incision pain were the main pain areas. All the kappa coefficients were between 0.164–0.255.

Conclusions

The consistency of postoperative pain assessment about pain score and pain location between nurses and patients was not high. We should attach importance to systematic pain assessment, and more detailed enhanced recovery after surgery pathways should be developed about pain assessment.

Relevance to clinical practice

Continuing education for nurses regarding pain assessment is necessary. Nurses should accept the patient's self‐reported pain. There should be a step that gives more time for pain assessment in enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

❌