01746nas a2200181   4500000000100000008004100001260010500042653001500147653002200162100001300184700001500197700001400212700001200226700001600238245008700254300001400341520120900355       2016                            d  bEscola Superior de Enfermagem de Coimbra-Unidade de Investigação em Ciências da Saúde-Enfermagem10aWound care10aSystematic review1 aSantos E1 aQueirós P1 aCardoso D1 aCunha M1 aApóstolo J00aThe effectiveness of cleansing solutions for wound treatment: a systematic review.  a133–1443 a<p>Background: There is a consensus that wound cleansing reduces infection rates. There is, however, some debate in clinical circles about the potential advantages and disadvantages of cleansing wounds.<br />
<br />
Objectives: To identify and synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of cleansing solutions for wound treatment.<br />
<br />
Review method: This systematic review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and included studies that considered patients with chronic and acute wounds. Critical appraisal, extraction and synthesis of data were performed by two independent reviewers.<br />
<br />
Results: Three randomized clinical trials (n=718) were included and the results of the meta-analysis showed no difference in the wound infection for the Tap Water versus Sterile Saline comparison (OR=0,79; 95% Cl= 0,36-1,72; p=0,55). For acute wounds, the odds ratio was 0,98 (95% CI= 0,43-2,25).<br />
<br />
Conclusion: There is no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute and chronic wounds in adults increases infection or healing rates. There may be a trend towards a lower wound infection rate when povidone-iodine is used in surgical wounds.</p>