What is the evidence for tissue regeneration impairment when using a formulation of PVP-I antiseptic on open wounds?
Wound care and the use of antiseptics has long been the subject of much debate within the health professional's literature. This study was undertaken to determine the range of literature available on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) antiseptic use and the evidence supporting the outcomes reported. A range of articles was collected and divided into subgroups based on hierarchy of evidence and the five evidence dimensions [1]. Using the READER scoring tool, articles were evaluated and given a numerical award between 4 and 25 as a determinant of their quality in method, statistical analysis and outcome measures, with those scoring 12.5 or higher (from a possible 25) deemed as offering a satisfactory level of evidence. Statistical analysis on the results prior to applying the READER scoring tool found that overall 49% of articles did not support PVP-I use. However, this situation changed when the quality of evidence was limited to articles scoring >12.5. The higher-scored articles showed a 71% support for the continued use of PVP-I. The outcome of this study shows that there is reason for further debate over the use of PVP-I.
Banwell
Helen
H
School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. helen.banwell@unisa.edu.au
D000287:Administration, Topical; D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local / Q000494:pharmacology* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D011206:Povidone-Iodine / Q000494:pharmacology* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000187:drug effects*; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000188:drug therapy*
D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local; D011206:Povidone-Iodine