The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and lack of/unclear blinding), and by imprecise results (few patients for each comparison).
A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 12 studies with a total of 1 023 subjects. Three studies compared two types of foam dressings, whilst the others involved comparison between foam and other types of dressings. The comparator dressings were: paraffin gauze (2 studies); protease-modulating matrix (1 study); hydrocapillary (1 study); hydrocolloid (5 studies); and knitted viscose (1 study).
No statistically significant differences were detected between treatment groups for any healing outcome for comparisons of different variants of foam dressings, nor for foam compared with other types of dressings. The length of follow up varied across studies and ranged between 4 weeks and one year. Meta-analysis was feasible for one comparison: there was no statistically significant difference between foam dressings and hydrocolloid dressings in the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 to 16 weeks (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22; 5 studies, n=418).
No statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events were detected when hydrocellular foam dressings were compared with polyurethane foam dressings, or when foam dressings were compared with hydrocapillary, hydrocolloid, or knitted viscose dressings (1 study for each comparison).
Date of latest search:
Primary/Secondary Keywords