Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · Wounds · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 25%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 25%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 1 · 25%High 0 · 0%

Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham‐ECT plus standard care

The proportion of pressure ulcers healed · people with pressure ulcers

Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) probably leads to higher proportion of pressure ulcers healed (3 to 12 weeks) compared with sham/no ES (plus standard care) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.99 [1.39, 2.85]
Studies not reported
Moderate

Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham‐ECT plus standard care

Time to complete healing · people with pressure ulcers

It is very uncertain whether electrical stimulation (plus standard care) changes time to complete healing (3 and 8 weeks) compared with sham/no ES (plus standard care) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 1.06 [0.47, 2.41]
Studies not reported
Very low

Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham‐ECT plus standard care

Complications/ adverse events related to pressure ulcers (3 to 12 weeks) · people with pressure ulcers

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham‐ECT plus standard care

QoL · people with pressure ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found