Objectives To systematically review the preventive effects of different pressure relief devices. Methods Databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized control trials (RCTs) on the preventive effects of pressure relief devices for the surgical pressure sore from inception to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed using gemtc package of R 3.5.0 software, Stata 13.0 and JAGS 3.4.0 software. Results A total of 20 RCTs involving 4 183 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that micropulse dynamic pad was superior to standard pad. The gel pad was superior to sponge pad. The standard pad and cotton gauze pad. The foam dressing was superior to gel pad. All of the differences were statistically significant. The results of the ranking probability plot suggested foam dressing as an optimal resolution for preventing surgical pressure sore. Conclusions According to the network meta-analysis and rankings, foam dressing is superior to other decompression devices in preventing surgical pressure sores.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the risk factors associated with sleep disorders in ICU patients.MethodsWe searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP and CBM databases to collect cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies on the risk factors associated with sleep disorders in ICU patients from inception to October, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the bias risk of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 9 articles were included, with a total of 1 068 patients, including 12 risk factors. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined effect of equipment noise (OR=0.42, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.68, P=0.000 4), patients’ talk (OR=0.53, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.66, P<0.000 01), patients’ noise (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.74, P=0.004), light (OR=0.29, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.45, P<0.000 01), night treatment (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.50, P<0.000 01), diseases and drug effects (OR=0.17,95%CI 0.08 to 0.36, P<0.000 01), pain (OR=0.37, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.82, P=0.01), comfort changes (OR=0.34,95%CI 0.17 to 0.67,P=0.002), anxiety (OR=0.31,95%CI 0.12 to 0.78, P=0.01), visit time (OR=0.72, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.98, P=0.04), economic burden (OR=0.63, 95%CI 0.48 to 0.82, P=0.000 5) were statistically significant risk factors for sleep disorders in ICU patients.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that the risk factors for sleep disorders in ICU patients are environmental factors (talking voices of nurses, patient noise, and light), treatment factors (night treatment), disease factors (disease itself and drug effects, pain,) and psychological factors (visiting time, economic burden). Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusions.