Cochrane · systematic review · CD012196
Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers
Arora, M, Harvey, LA, Glinsky, JV, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 25%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 25%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 1 · 25%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) versus sham/no ES (plus standard care) for treating pressure ulcers
Population: people with pressure ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of pressure ulcers healed (3 to 12 weeks) Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham/no ES (plus standard care) | RR 1.99 [1.39, 2.85] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Time to complete healing (3 and 8 weeks) Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham/no ES (plus standard care) | HR 1.06 [0.47, 2.41] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Complications/ adverse events related to pressure ulcers (3 to 12 weeks) Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham/no ES (plus standard care) | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life (QoL) Electrical stimulation (plus standard care) vs sham/no ES (plus standard care) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |