Header GNEAUPP -500x500 only nurse.png
Referencias
  1. Guest et al. JWC. 2017 26(6): 292-303.
  2. Guest JF, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e045253
  3. Rossington A, et al. Wounds UK. 2013;9(4):91-95).
  4. Simon D, Bielby A. A structured collaborative approachto appraise the clinical performance of a new product. Wounds UK. 2014;10(3):80- 87.
  5. Smith+Nephew2022. PostMarketClinicalFollow-Up (PMCF) Report for ALLEVYN GENTLE. CSD.AWM.22.050
  6. Hurd T, Gregory L, Jones A, Brown S.A multi-centre in-market evaluation of ALLEVYN Gentle Border. Wounds UK. 2009;5(3):32-44.
  7. Stephen-Haynes J, GreenwoodM. Clinical evaluation of Allevyn Gentle Border Lite within one health trust.British Journal of Nursing.2011;20(20):36-42
  8. Leonard S, Mccluskey P, Long S, et al. An evaluation of Allevyn Adhesive and Non-Adhesivefoamdressings.WoundsUK. 2009;5(1):17-28.
  9. Forni C, et al. J Wound Care. 2020;29(2):120 - 127.
  10. Tiscar-Gonzalez V, et al. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(1):23–30.
  11. Smith+Nephew 2016. Internal report. CE/047/ALF.
  12. Kirsner RS, et al. Wound Manag & Prev. 2020;66(3):30-3
  13. Smith+Nephew 2022. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.071.
  14.  Smith+Nephew 2022. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.068. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

i Manufacturer's IFU should always be consulted.
ii “Bigger smiles” refers to patient “overall satisfaction” score, where 87.6% of PICO sNPWT patients agreed or strongly agreed they were satisfied vs. 68.9% of tNPWT patients
iii With a training regime
iv Compared to baseline with standard dressings14 and vs tNPWT15
v n=17 This is for wounds less than three months in duration. This is wounds classified as on a healing trajectory, not necessarily 'success'

Title

Text