Abstract

Standard skin care procedures for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and peristomal skin care for colostomy and ileostomy patients are not always sufficient to prevent peristomal skin problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of standard peristomal skin care to adjunctive techniques or barriers (including glycogel dressings, gelatin-and pectin-based skin barriers, glycerin hydrogel wound dressing, Acacia senegal fiber pockets, hydrocolloid powder crusting, and German chamomile) to manage or treat patients with a stoma. Using systematic literature search techniques, all healthcare databases were searched up through September 2014. No language restrictions were applied. Studies were included if they met criteria for published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that evaluated the outcome of standardized peristomal skin care and other adjunctive techniques or barriers used among patients with a stoma or PEG tube. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size by using random-effect models for the primary (skin irritation/reaction) and secondary (length of pouch wear time) outcomes. Six RCTs comprising 418 total patients were identified. Four evaluated the outcome of colostomy or ileostomy peristomal skin care, and no significant differences were detected in the incidence of skin problems (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.31-1.41). In the two studies that included length of pouch wear time, no significant differences were observed (RR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.03-7.97). No significant differences were seen in the rate of skin irritations of gastrostomy patients (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.20-1.59), but the difference in treatment outcomes of peristomal damage in patients with a colostomy was significant (P ≤ 0.01). The limited number of studies, study quality, heterogeneity of variability in peristomal care strategies and techniques, clinical factors, and nonuniform reporting of clinical parameters contributed to the heterogeneity among the trials. Well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the efficacy of various barriers and techniques for peristomal skin care and to help develop evidence-based standards of caring for the skin of patients with a colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)26-33
Number of pages8
JournalOstomy Wound Management
Volume60
Issue number10
Publication statusPublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Skin Care
Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Gastrostomy
Colostomy
Ileostomy
Skin
Bandages
Matricaria
Acacia
Senegal
Hydrogel
Colloids
Gelatin
Powders
Glycerol
Language
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Incidence

Keywords

  • colostomy
  • gastrostomy
  • ileostomy
  • meta-analysis
  • peristomal skin care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Internal Medicine
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for peristomal skin care. / Tam, Ka-Wai; Lai, Jun Hung; Chen, Hung-Chou; Hou, Wen-Hsuan; Ko, Wang Sheng; Chen, Shu Ling; Huang, Tsai Wei.

In: Ostomy Wound Management, Vol. 60, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 26-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d2817e726004ca48def350038d641e1,
title = "A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for peristomal skin care",
abstract = "Standard skin care procedures for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and peristomal skin care for colostomy and ileostomy patients are not always sufficient to prevent peristomal skin problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of standard peristomal skin care to adjunctive techniques or barriers (including glycogel dressings, gelatin-and pectin-based skin barriers, glycerin hydrogel wound dressing, Acacia senegal fiber pockets, hydrocolloid powder crusting, and German chamomile) to manage or treat patients with a stoma. Using systematic literature search techniques, all healthcare databases were searched up through September 2014. No language restrictions were applied. Studies were included if they met criteria for published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that evaluated the outcome of standardized peristomal skin care and other adjunctive techniques or barriers used among patients with a stoma or PEG tube. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size by using random-effect models for the primary (skin irritation/reaction) and secondary (length of pouch wear time) outcomes. Six RCTs comprising 418 total patients were identified. Four evaluated the outcome of colostomy or ileostomy peristomal skin care, and no significant differences were detected in the incidence of skin problems (RR 0.67; 95{\%} CI: 0.31-1.41). In the two studies that included length of pouch wear time, no significant differences were observed (RR 0.48; 95{\%} CI: 0.03-7.97). No significant differences were seen in the rate of skin irritations of gastrostomy patients (RR 0.56; 95{\%} CI: 0.20-1.59), but the difference in treatment outcomes of peristomal damage in patients with a colostomy was significant (P ≤ 0.01). The limited number of studies, study quality, heterogeneity of variability in peristomal care strategies and techniques, clinical factors, and nonuniform reporting of clinical parameters contributed to the heterogeneity among the trials. Well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the efficacy of various barriers and techniques for peristomal skin care and to help develop evidence-based standards of caring for the skin of patients with a colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy.",
keywords = "colostomy, gastrostomy, ileostomy, meta-analysis, peristomal skin care",
author = "Ka-Wai Tam and Lai, {Jun Hung} and Hung-Chou Chen and Wen-Hsuan Hou and Ko, {Wang Sheng} and Chen, {Shu Ling} and Huang, {Tsai Wei}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "26--33",
journal = "Ostomy Wound Management",
issn = "0889-5899",
publisher = "HMP Communications",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing interventions for peristomal skin care

AU - Tam, Ka-Wai

AU - Lai, Jun Hung

AU - Chen, Hung-Chou

AU - Hou, Wen-Hsuan

AU - Ko, Wang Sheng

AU - Chen, Shu Ling

AU - Huang, Tsai Wei

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Standard skin care procedures for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and peristomal skin care for colostomy and ileostomy patients are not always sufficient to prevent peristomal skin problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of standard peristomal skin care to adjunctive techniques or barriers (including glycogel dressings, gelatin-and pectin-based skin barriers, glycerin hydrogel wound dressing, Acacia senegal fiber pockets, hydrocolloid powder crusting, and German chamomile) to manage or treat patients with a stoma. Using systematic literature search techniques, all healthcare databases were searched up through September 2014. No language restrictions were applied. Studies were included if they met criteria for published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that evaluated the outcome of standardized peristomal skin care and other adjunctive techniques or barriers used among patients with a stoma or PEG tube. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size by using random-effect models for the primary (skin irritation/reaction) and secondary (length of pouch wear time) outcomes. Six RCTs comprising 418 total patients were identified. Four evaluated the outcome of colostomy or ileostomy peristomal skin care, and no significant differences were detected in the incidence of skin problems (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.31-1.41). In the two studies that included length of pouch wear time, no significant differences were observed (RR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.03-7.97). No significant differences were seen in the rate of skin irritations of gastrostomy patients (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.20-1.59), but the difference in treatment outcomes of peristomal damage in patients with a colostomy was significant (P ≤ 0.01). The limited number of studies, study quality, heterogeneity of variability in peristomal care strategies and techniques, clinical factors, and nonuniform reporting of clinical parameters contributed to the heterogeneity among the trials. Well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the efficacy of various barriers and techniques for peristomal skin care and to help develop evidence-based standards of caring for the skin of patients with a colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy.

AB - Standard skin care procedures for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and peristomal skin care for colostomy and ileostomy patients are not always sufficient to prevent peristomal skin problems. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effectiveness of standard peristomal skin care to adjunctive techniques or barriers (including glycogel dressings, gelatin-and pectin-based skin barriers, glycerin hydrogel wound dressing, Acacia senegal fiber pockets, hydrocolloid powder crusting, and German chamomile) to manage or treat patients with a stoma. Using systematic literature search techniques, all healthcare databases were searched up through September 2014. No language restrictions were applied. Studies were included if they met criteria for published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that evaluated the outcome of standardized peristomal skin care and other adjunctive techniques or barriers used among patients with a stoma or PEG tube. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled effect size by using random-effect models for the primary (skin irritation/reaction) and secondary (length of pouch wear time) outcomes. Six RCTs comprising 418 total patients were identified. Four evaluated the outcome of colostomy or ileostomy peristomal skin care, and no significant differences were detected in the incidence of skin problems (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.31-1.41). In the two studies that included length of pouch wear time, no significant differences were observed (RR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.03-7.97). No significant differences were seen in the rate of skin irritations of gastrostomy patients (RR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.20-1.59), but the difference in treatment outcomes of peristomal damage in patients with a colostomy was significant (P ≤ 0.01). The limited number of studies, study quality, heterogeneity of variability in peristomal care strategies and techniques, clinical factors, and nonuniform reporting of clinical parameters contributed to the heterogeneity among the trials. Well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the efficacy of various barriers and techniques for peristomal skin care and to help develop evidence-based standards of caring for the skin of patients with a colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy.

KW - colostomy

KW - gastrostomy

KW - ileostomy

KW - meta-analysis

KW - peristomal skin care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908042848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908042848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 26

EP - 33

JO - Ostomy Wound Management

JF - Ostomy Wound Management

SN - 0889-5899

IS - 10

ER -