Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs and case-control studies were actually included.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies of the film-forming liquid acrylate NSBF were eligible for inclusion. The review appeared to focus on Cavilon NSBF manufactured by 3M, but the product used in each of the included studies was not explicit. The included studies compared NSBF with no film, conventional treatment, placebo, zinc paste, zinc oxide or petrolatum. One study compared NSBF with hydrocolloid dressing to hydrocolloid dressing alone. One included study was described as comparing an alcohol-based with a siloxane-based skin protectant. The comparator in one study was not stated.
Participants included in the review
Studies in people with chronic wounds in any care setting were eligible for inclusion. The participants in the included studies were not described.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Studies that reported any objective measure of outcome, such as reduction in erythema or maceration, were eligible for inclusion. Studies that reported only surrogate or objective measures were excluded. The outcomes assessed were grouped under erythema/maceration control, wound healing, cleansing and application time, pain and patient comfort, and ease of application. The actual outcome measures used in each study were not fully defined.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection.