Critical Appraisal of Two Quantitative Research Studies

Critical Appraisal of Two Quantitative Research Studies
Diabetic foot ulcers are a common problem in patients who have diabetes. The wounds require therapy to prevent infections; this includes negative pressure wound therapy or standard moist dressing. In nursing practice, wound care and management are critical as chronic diabetic foot ulcers can lead to sepsis, further necessitating limb amputation. The caregivers require specialized skills to treat persistent diabetic foot ulcers. Wound management is predominantly a nurse-led area, and evidence shows that the nurse' exercise in wound care therapy benefits the patients and reduces healthcare costs. In healthy individuals, acute wounds heal quickly, while in diabetic persons, it takes more time. This paper provides a critical analysis of two quantitative research studies on vacuum-assisted closure dressing on diabetic foot ulcers. The studies include Farooq et al. (2019) study on “Diabetic foot ulcers; a comparison of outcome of Vacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) dressing with wet dressings” and James et al. (2019), “The comparison of vacuum-assisted closure therapy and conventional dressing on wound healing in patients with diabetic foot ulcer” study. Negative pressure wound therapy leads to faster healing of diabetic foot ulcers compared to standard moist dressing.
PICOT Question
In patients with stage 3 diabetic ulcers, how does negative pressure wound therapy compared to a standard moist dressing affect wound healing over two months?
Background of Studies
Farooq et al. (2019) article investigates the outcome of vacuum-assisted closure and dressing over the wet dressing. The study was done at the Department of Surgery in Al-Bukyriah General Hospital in a span of three and half years, from June 2012 to December 2016, using 200 patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The patients were randomly classified into two groups, A and B, using the lottery method. Each group had 100 patients. Group A patients received vacuum-assisted closure dressing treatment, while Group B received moist dressing with hydrocolloid gel. All patients below 18 years and having other health complications such as acute ulcers or malignancy were excluded. The wound dressing was done every third day and analyzed weekly, and wound size was measured at the end of the month; the measurement was expressed in percentage. The study is significant to nursing as it provides insight into determining the most effective, safe, and fast therapy for treating diabetic ulcers. Additionally, saving on costs for the patient. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of wound healing with negative pressure wound therapy to conventional moist dressings in the treatment of sizeable diabetic foot wounds. The objectives were to find the rate of wound healing in each group and to identify changes in wound sizes between patients in both groups. The research question was to know whether vacuum-assisted closure therapy was better than moist dressing when taking care of diabetic foot ulcers.
James et al. (2019) article titled “The comparison of vacuum-assisted closure therapy and conventional dressing on wound healing in patients with diabetic foot ulcer” evaluates the benefit of vacuum-ass...