Ask an answerable question (PICO)：
In clinical care, assessing wound healing is a crucial aspect. During my tenure in the intensive care unit, I encountered a patient who had sustained multiple abrasions and scalded wounds from a car accident, caused by friction with the asphalt road. Despite the application of silver sulfadiazine twice a day for wound care by the medical team, the healing progress was unsatisfactory. However, upon transitioning to AQUACEL® Ag dressings, the patient's wound healing significantly improved, leading to a transfer to the general ward. This experience prompted me to contemplate whether these dressing changes could be universally applied to various types of wounds. Consequently, the research study aims to determine whether hydrophilic silver-containing dressings can expedite wound healing compared to silver sulfadiazine ointment.
The Method and Analysis of Literature Review：
Our study, utilizing the PICO framework, investigated wound healing by comparing AQUACEL® Ag and Silver sulfadiazine. In July 2022, a systematic search across seven databases yielded 32 relevant pieces of literature after exclusions. The critical appraisal of two randomized controlled trials focused on wound patients, comparing hydrophilic silver-containing dressings with silver sulfadiazine ointment for dressing changes. Caruso Daniel M et al. (2006) defined healing as 100% reepithelialization in 16 days compared to 17 days (p = .517), while Muangman P et al. (2010) defined healing as 95% re-epithelialization in 10±3 days compared to 13.7±4.3 days (p < 0.02).
Critical Appraisal：
The study compared AQUACEL® Ag to silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for wound care. Caruso Daniel M et al. (2006) defined healing as 100% reepithelialization in 16 days (vs. 17 days, p = .517). Muangman P et al. (2010) defined it as 95% reepithelialization in 10±3 days (vs. 13.7±4.3 days, p < 0.02). One study favored AQUACEL® Ag for wound healing time, while the other yielded unclear results. AQUACEL® Ag was more cost-effective in both studies. Caruso Daniel M et al. (2006) reported $52 ± $29 vs. $93 ± $36 for SSD (p < 0.01). Muangman P et al. (2010) demonstrated that AQUACEL® Ag's average cost was < 50% of SSD ($647 vs. $1,440, p = .024). In conclusion, AQUACEL® Ag outperforms SSD in wound healing time, cost, and pain. Healthcare professionals may consider AQUACEL® Ag changes every three days for non-infected wounds to enhance overall wound care quality.
Results, Conclusions and Recommendations：
This study compares AQUACEL® Ag to silver sulfadiazine (SSD) for wound care. Caruso Daniel M et al. (2006) defined healing as 100% reepithelialization in 16 days (vs. 17 days, p = .517), while Muangman P et al. (2010) defined it as 95% reepithelialization in 10±3 days (vs. 13.7±4.3 days, p < 0.02). AQUACEL® Ag showed superior results in both wound healing time and cost. Caruso Daniel M et al. (2006) reported $52 ± $29 for AQUACEL® Ag vs. $93 ± $36 for SSD (p < 0.01), and Muangman P et al. (2010) showed AQUACEL® Ag's average cost was < 50% of SSD ($647 vs. $1,440, p = .024).
In conclusion, AQUACEL® Ag is more effective than SSD in wound care. Consider AQUACEL® Ag changes every three days for non-infected wounds to enhance overall care quality.
