Identifying Sources of Evidence
Current guidelines indicate the necessity for wound dressings to be maintained in a humid environment, absorb exudate, prevent infections, and induce healing. Some examples of these dressings include hydrogels, alginate dressings, hydrocolloids, and foam adhesives (Firlar et al. 2022). Diabetic wound dressings are usually non-adhesive, regular bandages and some may have antibacterial properties within their makeup. To identify relevant evidence that specifically reflects the above PICO(T) question, it was important to narrow down the search for the most targeted research about wound therapies. The search for evidence started with the Summon database where the CRAAP model was used to locate credible evidence. This test allows for that final check as to whether or not the source is credible and trustworthy.
The first source of credible evidence that was uncovered is an article by Borys et al. (2019) and explores “negative pressure wound therapy use in diabetic foot syndrome.” This article directly answered the aforementioned PICO(T) question because it addresses the pros and cons of negative pressure wound therapy and its effect on wound healing. It even states that this treatment can effectively reduce the size of the ulcer in just 16 days. Another source of evidence was noted by Seidel et al. (2020), and explains “negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard moist therapy.” This scholarly article directly relates to the PICO(T) question because it discusses the difference between negative pressure and standard moist therapies in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.