Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this literature review was to establish the evidence for using tap water as opposed to normal saline for cleansing wounds in adults. Tap water is widely available and non-toxic to wounds, making it a cost-effective solution for wound cleansing. Despite that, contrary opinions exist with regard to its safety, such as: fear of wound colonisation by Pseudomonas spp. found in plumbing systems of healthcare facilities; damage to the wound bed; or increased pain when tap water is used for wound cleansing.
UNASSIGNED: A PICO model was used as a guide to form the title, and the standards for inclusion and exclusion of studies were prespecified to form the eligibility criteria. The search was conducted using a range of databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
UNASSIGNED: Included were seven studies: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a quasi-RCT and a cross-sectional study. Of these, six studies demonstrated that use of tap water had no significant influence on wound infection rates when compared to normal saline; four studies established no adverse results or benefits when using tap water or normal saline for wound cleansing; and one study demonstrated that tap water did not increase wound contamination. Also, one study reported no impact on wound healing when tap water or normal saline were used for cleansing; four established that tap water was cost-effective compared to normal saline; and one demonstrated increased patient satisfaction when tap water was used for wound irrigation.
UNASSIGNED: Current evidence supports tap water as a safe and cost-effective solution for wound cleansing.
UNASSIGNED: A PICO model was used as a guide to form the title, and the standards for inclusion and exclusion of studies were prespecified to form the eligibility criteria. The search was conducted using a range of databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
UNASSIGNED: Included were seven studies: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a quasi-RCT and a cross-sectional study. Of these, six studies demonstrated that use of tap water had no significant influence on wound infection rates when compared to normal saline; four studies established no adverse results or benefits when using tap water or normal saline for wound cleansing; and one study demonstrated that tap water did not increase wound contamination. Also, one study reported no impact on wound healing when tap water or normal saline were used for cleansing; four established that tap water was cost-effective compared to normal saline; and one demonstrated increased patient satisfaction when tap water was used for wound irrigation.
UNASSIGNED: Current evidence supports tap water as a safe and cost-effective solution for wound cleansing.
摘要：
■这篇文献综述的目的是建立使用自来水而不是生理盐水清洁成人伤口的证据。自来水广泛可用，对伤口无毒，使其成为伤口清洁的具有成本效益的解决方案。尽管如此,关于它的安全存在相反的意见，例如：担心假单胞菌属的伤口定植。在医疗机构的管道系统中发现；对伤口床的损坏；或使用自来水清洁伤口时疼痛加剧。
■PICO模型被用作形成标题的指南，并预先规定了纳入和排除研究的标准,以形成合格标准.搜索是使用一系列数据库进行的，包括CINAHL，MEDLINE,PubMed和Cochrane中央对照试验登记册。
■包括七项研究：五项随机对照试验（RCT），准RCT和横断面研究。其中,6项研究表明,与生理盐水相比,使用自来水对伤口感染率没有显著影响;4项研究表明,使用自来水或生理盐水清洁伤口时,没有任何不利结果或益处;1项研究表明,自来水不会增加伤口污染.此外，一项研究报告称,使用自来水或生理盐水进行清洁对伤口愈合没有影响;四项研究证实,与生理盐水相比,自来水具有成本效益;一项研究表明,使用自来水进行伤口冲洗时,患者满意度提高.
■目前的证据支持自来水作为一种安全且具有成本效益的伤口清洁解决方案。
■PICO模型被用作形成标题的指南，并预先规定了纳入和排除研究的标准,以形成合格标准.搜索是使用一系列数据库进行的，包括CINAHL，MEDLINE,PubMed和Cochrane中央对照试验登记册。
■包括七项研究：五项随机对照试验（RCT），准RCT和横断面研究。其中,6项研究表明,与生理盐水相比,使用自来水对伤口感染率没有显著影响;4项研究表明,使用自来水或生理盐水清洁伤口时,没有任何不利结果或益处;1项研究表明,自来水不会增加伤口污染.此外，一项研究报告称,使用自来水或生理盐水进行清洁对伤口愈合没有影响;四项研究证实,与生理盐水相比,自来水具有成本效益;一项研究表明,使用自来水进行伤口冲洗时,患者满意度提高.
■目前的证据支持自来水作为一种安全且具有成本效益的伤口清洁解决方案。
