Cochrane · systematic review · CD012583
Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers
Norman, G, Westby, MJ, Rithalia, AD, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · 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
11
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 9.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 27.3%Low 6 · 54.5%Moderate 1 · 9.1%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
NMA evidence: proportion with complete healing
Population: people with venous leg ulcers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Contrasts | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sucralfate versus nonadherent | RR 6.8 [2.24, 20.7] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sucralfate versus foam | RR 5.94 [1.96, 18] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sucralfate versus hydrocolloid | RR 6.51 [2.17, 19.6] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Silver versus nonadherent | RR 2.43 [1.58, 3.74] | NR | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Silver versus foam | RR 2.12 [1.46, 3.07] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Silver versus hydrocolloid | RR 2.32 [1.58, 3.41] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sucralfate versus silver | RR 2.8 [0.88, 8.97] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Foam versus hydrocolloid | RR 1.1 [0.93, 1.28] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Foam versus nonadherent dressing | RR 1.15 [0.91, 1.44] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hydrocolloid versus nonadherent dressing | RR 1.04 [0.85, 1.29] | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |