[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-180892-105":59,"doc-detail-180892-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","elderly-wound-management-evidence-12-19-intervention-outcomes-and-evidence-tables","Elderly Wound Management Evidence (12-19) - Intervention Outcomes and Evidence Tables","","Evidence synthesis on wound management interventions for elderly patients, spanning pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, nonhealing wounds, and skin tears. The document summarizes study designs, PICO frameworks, methods, main outcomes, and effect estimates across multiple trials (12–19), including healing time, complete healing, pain reduction, and wound size reduction. It further evaluates risk of bias and provides GRADE certainty, plus a risk-ratio meta-analysis for key healing outcomes to support practical intervention selection.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/elderly-wound-management-evidence-12-19-intervention-outcomes-and-evidence-tables/180892/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/elderly-wound-management-evidence-12-19-intervention-outcomes-and-evidence-tables/180892.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Chumphorn","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Which wound-healing interventions show the strongest evidence in elderly patients?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Biological dressings and related interventions show the highest support, with complete wound healing summarized as RR 2.66 (95% CI 1.88–3.76) under high GRADE certainty. Biological approaches include honey, silicone, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM).","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How is the quality of evidence assessed in the document?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Risk of bias is evaluated per study using tools such as RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, with each trial labeled as low or moderate risk depending on blinding, sample size, and assessment procedures. A GRADE summary then ranks certainty for outcomes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What outcomes are compared across studies and meta-analysis?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The document compares complete wound healing, healing time reduction, pain reduction, cost-effectiveness for nutrition, and wound size reduction. A risk-ratio meta-analysis reports RR values (e.g., 2.67, 2.84, 2.54) for wound healing outcomes across selected studies.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},180892,1790035938,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},2336475401981,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c94efd8d5204d?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786935347598174694","| Table 1. The Evidence of Wound Management in the Elderly12-19 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Researcher, Year | Mean Age (±SD) | PICO | Method | Main Results | Effect Size (RR/ OR/MD/HR, 95%CI) | Risk of Bias & Method | Conclusion | Implication in Practice | NNT/NNH |\n| Honde et al., 1994 (12) | Mean 82 yrs | P: Elderly with Grade II–IV PU\u003Cbr>I: Copolymer membrane\u003Cbr>C: Hydrocolloid\u003Cbr>O: Healing time | Open-label\u003Cbr>RCT, n=168,\u003Cbr>multicenter | Healing faster with\u003Cbr>Inerpan (32 vs. 38 days); p = 0.014 | HR not provided | Moderate; open\u003Cbr>label, multicenter | Inerpan improved healing vs. hydrocolloid | Viable PU membrane\u003Cbr>dressing for elderly | Not\u003Cbr>reported |\n| Landi et al., 2003 (13) | Not reported | P: Elderly with foot PU\u003Cbr>I: Nerve growth factor\u003Cbr>C: Standard care\u003Cbr>O: Wound area reduction | Double-blind\u003Cbr>RCT, n=36, 6 weeks | Ulcer size: 738 vs. 485 mm²; p = 0.034 | MD = 253 mm²; p = 0.034 | Moderate; wellblinded, small sample | NGF may benefit severe PU | Useful for difficultto-heal ulcers | Not\u003Cbr>estimable |\n| Hisashige &\u003Cbr>Ohura, 2012 (14) | 81.4 ± 8.1 yrs | P: Elderly with PU\u003Cbr>I: Nutritional support\u003Cbr>C: Standard care\u003Cbr>O: Healing, QALY, cost | RCT-based economic analysis (n=60) | 16.2 fewer PU days; QALY gain;$881 saved | MD = -16.2 PU days | Low; modeled from RCT | Nutrition improved healing, cost-saving | Integrate nutrition in elderly PU management | ≈ 6.2 |\n| Smith-Strøm et al., 2016 (15) | 62.6 (range\u003Cbr>47–88) yrs | P: Adults with Diabetic foot ulcers\u003Cbr>I: Telemedicine\u003Cbr>C: Traditional care\u003Cbr>O: Experience, continuity | Cluster RCT\u003Cbr>(qualitative\u003Cbr>substudy) | Improved continuity and timeliness | Qualitative only | Moderate;\u003Cbr>qualitative design | Telemedicine enhances\u003Cbr>care when implemented well | Needs trained staff and digital infra | Not\u003Cbr>applicable |\n| Dehghani et al., 2017 (16) | 44 ± 12.7 yrs | P: Adults with stage II–III PU\u003Cbr>I: Cryopreserved AM\u003Cbr>C: Dilantin powder\u003Cbr>O: Closure time | RCT, n=24, single center | 100% healed in AM vs. 0% control; 20\u003Cbr>vs. 54 days | Not directly reported; p\u003C0.001 | Low; IRCTregistered, well reported | AM significantly improves PU healing | Viable biologic PU dressing | ≈ 2 |\n| Zeleníková et\u003Cbr>al., 2019 (17) | ≥65 yrs | P: Elderly with nonhealing wounds\u003Cbr>I: Honey\u003Cbr>C: Iodine/silver/ hydrogel\u003Cbr>O: Healing, pain | Prospective RCT, n=40 | 80% healed in honey vs. 30% control: pain significantly lower (p = 0.0007) | RR = 2.67; p = 0.0041 | Low; blinded\u003Cbr>outcome assessor | Honey is effective for healing and pain relief | Cost-effective for\u003Cbr>home wound care | ≈ 2 |\n| LeBlanc & Woo, 2021 (18) | Mean 83 yrs | P: Elderly with skin tears\u003Cbr>I: Silicone\u003Cbr>C: Non-adhesive\u003Cbr>O: Healing rate, time | Pragmatic RCT, n=126 | 96.9% healed vs. 34.4%; median healing 11 vs. 22 days | RR = 2.82 (95%\u003Cbr>CI: 1.89–4. 21); p\u003C0.0001 | Low; pragmatic design | Silicone\u003Cbr>significantly improved healing | First-line dressing for elderly skin tears | ≈ 2 |\n| Kim et al., 2022 (19) | Not reported | P: Adults with chronic wounds >4 cm²\u003Cbr>I: Paste-type ADM\u003Cbr>C: Standard care\u003Cbr>O: Healing | RCT, multicenter,\u003Cbr>n=86, 12 weeks | 76.3% healed in ADM group; better\u003Cbr>size reduction from week 2 onward | p\u003C0 .05 (no RR reported) | Low; registered RCT | ADM accelerates wound healing | Suitable for advanced wound care | Not\u003Cbr>reported |\n\n\n| Table 2. Risk of Bias Assessment12-19 |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Researcher, Year | Risk of Bias | Tool Used / Method of Assessment |\n| Honde et al., 1994 | Moderate | RoB 2 (inferred); open-label RCT, no blinding, outcome assessor not blinded |\n| Landi et al., 2003 | Moderate | RoB 2 (applied); small sample size but double-blinded and randomized |\n| Hisashige & Ohura, 2012 | Low | ROBINS-I (applied); based on economic analysis using RCT-derived inputs |\n| Dehghani et al., 2017 | Low | RoB 2 (applied); IRCT-registered, with clear protocol and outcome definition |\n| Smi","cbCaibdWkeu7cWLh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibdWkeu7cWLh","pdf",721360,13,"English","# Intervention Evidence by Study (12–19)\n## Findings and Practical Implications\n# Risk of Bias Assessment (12–19)\n# Meta-Analysis and Effect Estimates (17–19)\n# GRADE Summary of Findings\n## Healing, Pain, Time, and Cost-Effectiveness\n# Intervention Effectiveness by Type and Outcome Domain","[{\"question\":\"Which wound-healing interventions show the strongest evidence in elderly patients?\",\"answer\":\"Biological dressings and related interventions show the highest support, with complete wound healing summarized as RR 2.66 (95% CI 1.88–3.76) under high GRADE certainty. Biological approaches include honey, silicone, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM).\"},{\"question\":\"How is the quality of evidence assessed in the document?\",\"answer\":\"Risk of bias is evaluated per study using tools such as RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, with each trial labeled as low or moderate risk depending on blinding, sample size, and assessment procedures. A GRADE summary then ranks certainty for outcomes.\"},{\"question\":\"What outcomes are compared across studies and meta-analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The document compares complete wound healing, healing time reduction, pain reduction, cost-effectiveness for nutrition, and wound size reduction. A risk-ratio meta-analysis reports RR values (e.g., 2.67, 2.84, 2.54) for wound healing outcomes across selected studies.\"}]","Elderly Wound Management Evidence (12-19) - Intervention Outcomes and Evidence Tables | PDF",1788342555,33]