ArticleInternational wound journal2015
The analgesic effect of electrostimulation (WoundEL®) in the treatment of leg ulcers.
Article in International wound journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Activation of healing and reduction of pain by single-use automated microcurrent electrical stimulation therapy in patients with hard-to-heal wounds.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Electrical aspects of skin as a pathway to engineering skin devices.APL bioengineering · 2021Review
- Biomedical applications of electrical stimulation.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to demonstrate the analgesic efficacy of electrostimulation (ES), a recognised treatment for leg ulcers. Patients treated by ES for leg ulcers between 2011 and 2013 were included in the study. The pain score obtained with the numerical rating scale (NRS) was reported before the start of the ES (D0), after 3 days (D3) and 1 week following treatment initialisation. The analgesic treatments (AT) were reported at each assessment. Seventy-three patients were included (mean age 75·19 years): 31 venous leg ulcers, 21 mixed venous leg ulcers, 2 arterial ulcers, 17 hypertensive ischaemic ulcers, 1 Hydrea(®)-induced ulcer and an amputation stump ulcer. The NRS at D0 was on average 5·3 (median = 6) while it was 2·2 at D7 (median = 2), that is P < 0·001. The results were also significant between D0 and D3 (P < 0·001). A decrease in the number of AT used was observed between D0 (2·0 AT per patient on average) and D7 (1·7 AT on average) (P < 0·001). We also observed a decrease in the consumption of grade 3 analgesics on D0 and D7 (P = 0·03). This study demonstrates the rapid analgesic efficacy of ES in leg ulcers, with a clear impact on the NRS score and especially on the decrease in analgesic consumption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.