Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27429287›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2014

Electrical Stimulation and Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Review of Clinical Evidence.

Sara Ud-Din, Ardeshir Bayat

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02712580 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Trial for Therapeutic Effect of Wireless Micro Current Stimulation Under Objectification of Combustion Depth by Laser Doppler Imaging in Children and Adolescents With Deep Dermal Burns and Scald Injuries

TypeinterventionalSponsorKinderkrankenhaus auf der BultRan2016 to 2017Enrolled188ConditionsBurnsArmsFirst investigational device, Second investigational device, ES Wetling W200 Placebo with white light, ES Wetling W200 Placebo with red light
NCT05229692 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on the Post-Operative Abdominoplasty Patient.

TypeinterventionalSponsorNeuFit - Neurological Fitness and EducationRan2022 to 2023Enrolled0ConditionsRectus DiastasisArmsNEUBIE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Alveolar Bone Regeneration: Smart Biomaterials and Physical Stimulation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What's New in Wound Healing: Treatment Advances and Microbial Insights.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Future Directions About Keloid Scars Based on Pathogenesis and Therapies.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. A preliminaryJournal of biomaterials applications · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sara Ud-DinPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester M1 7DN, UK. sara.ud-din@manchester.ac.uk.
Ardeshir BayatPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester M1 7DN, UK. Ardeshir.bayat@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to have beneficial effects in wound healing. It is important to assess the effects of ES on cutaneous wound healing in order to ensure optimization for clinical practice. Several different applications as well as modalities of ES have been described, including direct current (DC), alternating current (AC), high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC), low-intensity direct current (LIDC) and electrobiofeedback ES. However, no one method has been advocated as the most optimal for the treatment of cutaneous wound healing. Therefore, this review aims to examine the level of evidence (LOE) for the application of different types of ES to enhance cutaneous wound healing in the skin. An extensive search was conducted to identify relevant clinical studies utilising ES for cutaneous wound healing since 1980 using PubMed, Medline and EMBASE. A total of 48 studies were evaluated and assigned LOE. All types of ES demonstrated positive effects on cutaneous wound healing in the majority of studies. However, the reported studies demonstrate contrasting differences in the parameters and types of ES application, leading to an inability to generate sufficient evidence to support any one standard therapeutic approach. Despite variations in the type of current, duration, and dosing of ES, the majority of studies showed a significant improvement in wound area reduction or accelerated wound healing compared to the standard of care or sham therapy as well as improved local perfusion. The limited number of LOE-1 trials for investigating the effects of ES in wound healing make critical evaluation and assessment somewhat difficult. Further, better-designed clinical trials are needed to improve our understanding of the optimal dosing, timing and type of ES to be used.

Indexed as

currentelectrical stimulationelectrobiofeedbacktreatmentwound healingwounds

Identifiers

PMID27429287
PMCPMC4934569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.