GRADE evidence profiles 32Promogran vs Saline moistened gauze (SMG)

Quality assessmentSummary of findings
No of patientsEffectQuality
No of studiesDesignLimitationsInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsPromogranSMGRelative
(95% CI)
Absolute
Complete wound healing (12 weeks)
1
[V]
RCTserious1no seriousno seriousserious2none51/104 (49.5%)39/84 (46.4%)RR 1.06 (0.78 to 1.43)3 more per 100 (from 10 fewer to 20 more)LOW
Wound surface reduction (%) (12 weeks)
1
[V]
RCTserious1no seriousno seriousSerious3none10484Mean wound surface reduction (%):
Promogran = 64.5%; SMG = 63.8%, P > 0.05
LOW
Wound-related serious AEs (12 weeks)
1
[V]
RCTserious1no seriousno seriousserious2none25/104 (24%)35/84 (41.7%)RR 0.58 (0.38 to 0.88)18 fewer per 100 (from 5 fewer to 26 fewer)LOW
1

No allocation concealment, assessor not blinded.

2

Total no. of events < 300.

3

Total no. of events < 400.

Promogran = collagen/oxidized regenerated cellulose dressing.

From: Appendix E, Full GRADE evidence profiles

Cover of Diabetic Foot Problems
Diabetic Foot Problems: Inpatient Management of Diabetic Foot Problems.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 119.
Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE (UK).
Copyright © 2011, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

All rights reserved. This material may be freely reproduced for educational and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or for commercial organisations, or for commercial purposes, is allowed without the express written permission of NICE.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.