- Email: [email protected]
Answers linked to Vermeulen H, Westerbos SJ, Ubbink DT. Benefit and harm of iodine in wound care: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2010;76:191–199.
Journal of Hospital Infection 78 (2011) 63
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Hospital Infection journal homepage: www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jhin
Continuing Professional Development and the Journal of Hospital Infection
Answers linked to Vermeulen H, Westerbos SJ, Ubbink DT. Benefit and harm of iodine in wound care: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2010;76:191e199. Accepted by S.J. Dancer Available online 23 October 2010
1. Within the systematic review of Vermeulen et al., meta-analysis was not performed due to clinical heterogeneity. True or false? Answer: True. 2. Iodine was best studied in: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
chronic ulcers; pressure ulcers; acute wounds; burn wounds; skin grafts.
Answer: (a). 3. Statement 1: The review of Vermeulen et al. showed no substantial difference for adverse reactions between iodine and other methods of local wound care.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Statement 2: In 14 trials complete wound healing was in favour of iodine. Statement 1 false, statement 2 false. Statement 1 true, statement 2 false. Statement 1 false, statement 2 true. Statement 1 true, statement 2 true.
Answer: (d). 4. Differences in pain during dressing removal in acute wounds: (a) were in favour of povidone iodine-impregnated gauzes instead of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes; (b) did not differ significantly between povidone iodineimpregnated gauzes and chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes; (c) were in favour of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes instead of povidone iodine-impregnated gauzes. Answer: (b).
Summarising the instructions from the Royal College of Pathologists: (1) One CPD point is allowed for each question and answer set (up to five questions and answers). (2) Answers must be recorded referenced back to the questions and recorded in the CPD portfolio. (3) It is essential that participants include the completed response form showing both questions and answers in their portfolio as these may be subject to audit by RCPath. For further information about the Royal College of Pathologists' CPD scheme and credit allocation, please contact: Professional Standards Unit, CPD Section, Royal College of Pathologists, 2 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AF, UK. E-mail: [email protected] or visit http://www.rcpath.org 0195-6701/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2010.09.007
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Hospital Infection journal homepage: www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jhin
Continuing Professional Development and the Journal of Hospital Infection
Answers linked to Vermeulen H, Westerbos SJ, Ubbink DT. Benefit and harm of iodine in wound care: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2010;76:191e199. Accepted by S.J. Dancer Available online 23 October 2010
1. Within the systematic review of Vermeulen et al., meta-analysis was not performed due to clinical heterogeneity. True or false? Answer: True. 2. Iodine was best studied in: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
chronic ulcers; pressure ulcers; acute wounds; burn wounds; skin grafts.
Answer: (a). 3. Statement 1: The review of Vermeulen et al. showed no substantial difference for adverse reactions between iodine and other methods of local wound care.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Statement 2: In 14 trials complete wound healing was in favour of iodine. Statement 1 false, statement 2 false. Statement 1 true, statement 2 false. Statement 1 false, statement 2 true. Statement 1 true, statement 2 true.
Answer: (d). 4. Differences in pain during dressing removal in acute wounds: (a) were in favour of povidone iodine-impregnated gauzes instead of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes; (b) did not differ significantly between povidone iodineimpregnated gauzes and chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes; (c) were in favour of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauzes instead of povidone iodine-impregnated gauzes. Answer: (b).
Summarising the instructions from the Royal College of Pathologists: (1) One CPD point is allowed for each question and answer set (up to five questions and answers). (2) Answers must be recorded referenced back to the questions and recorded in the CPD portfolio. (3) It is essential that participants include the completed response form showing both questions and answers in their portfolio as these may be subject to audit by RCPath. For further information about the Royal College of Pathologists' CPD scheme and credit allocation, please contact: Professional Standards Unit, CPD Section, Royal College of Pathologists, 2 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AF, UK. E-mail: [email protected] or visit http://www.rcpath.org 0195-6701/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2010.09.007