title: Evidence-based recommendations for the use of negative pressure wound therapy in chronic wounds: steps towards an international consensus.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) has become widely adopted over the last 15 years and over 1000 peer-reviewed publications are available describing its use. Despite this, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. In order to respond to this gap a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In this communication the results of the study of evidence in chronic wounds including pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), venous leg ulcers (VLU), and ischaemic lower limb wounds are reported.
  
  
  METHODS
  Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence, drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel followed by a formal consultative consensus development program in which 422 independent healthcare professionals were able to agree or disagree with the recommendations. The criteria for agreement were set at 80% agreement. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) classification system.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The primary treatment goal of NPWT in most chronic wounds is to achieve wound closure (either by secondary intention or preparing the wound for surgical closure). Secondary goals commonly include: to reduce wound dimensions, and to improve the quality of the wound bed. Thirteen evidence based recommendations were developed in total to address these treatment goals; 4 for pressure ulcers, 4 for DFU, 3 for ischaemic lower limb wounds and 2 for VLU.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The present evidence base is strongest for the use of NPWT in non-ischaemic DFU and weakest in VLU. The development of evidence-based recommendations for NPWT with direct validation from a large group of practicing clinicians offers a broader basis for consensus than work by an expert panel alone.
authors: Croydon University Hospital, London, UK.
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Vig
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Dowsett
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Berg
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Caravaggi
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Rome
authors: H
authors: H
authors: Birke-Sorensen
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Bruhin
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Chariker
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Depoorter
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Dunn
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Duteille
authors: F
authors: F
authors: Ferreira
authors: J M Francos
authors: JM
authors: Martínez
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Grudzien
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Hudson
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Ichioka
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Ingemansson
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Jeffery
authors: E
authors: E
authors: Krug
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Lee
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Malmsjo
authors: N
authors: N
authors: Runkel
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Martin
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Smith
mesh_terms: D002908:Chronic Disease; D032921:Consensus; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007391:International Cooperation; D054843:Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy / Q000592:standards*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D012883:Skin Ulcer / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000628:therapy*; D014945:Wound Healing