Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29957362›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of nursing studies2018

Effectiveness of cooling therapy (cryotherapy) on leg pain and self-efficacy in patients with chronic venous disease: A randomized controlled trial.

Teresa J Kelechi, Martina Mueller, Mohan Madisetti, Margie A Prentice, Mary J Dooley

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of nursing studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Symptoms Associated With Chronic Venous Disease in Response to a Cooling Treatment Compared to Placebo: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Teresa J KelechiMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, MSC 160, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. Electronic address: kelechtj@musc.edu.
Martina MuellerMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, MSC 160, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Mohan MadisettiMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, MSC 160, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Margie A PrenticeMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, MSC 160, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Mary J DooleyMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas Street, MSC 160, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
Preventing Venous Leg Ulcers with Cryotherapy: A Randomized Clinical TrialR01NR012237 · NINR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI KELECHI, TERESA J · 2011 to 2014
$2.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NINR NIH HHS R01 NR012237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals with chronic venous disease (CVeD) frequently experience associated leg pain that may influence disease management self-efficacy.

objectiveTo evaluate the influence of a cooling intervention on leg pain associated with more severe stages of CVeD and self-efficacy. This was a secondary aim of the trial.

designRandomized, blinded, comparator-controlled, multisite trial.

settingThree wound clinics and an academic medical research center in the United States of America.

participants276 participants (54.3% female, 46.7% male) with stage 4 and 5 CVeD were randomly assigned by computer generated tables to the cooling intervention group (n = 138) or control group (n = 138).

interventionsParticipants received either a cooling (intervention) leg cuff or placebo cuff (control) to apply topically over the affected skin area. Both groups performed standard of care including wearing compression wraps and elevating legs for 30 min during the intervention. Study visits occurred at baseline, and months 1, 3, 6, and 9.

methodsVisit measures included: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for short term pain; VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire for long-term pain; and, the Self Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale (SEMCD-6) for self-efficacy. Data were collected from September 2010 to December 2015 and analyzed using pooled t-tests, Chi-square tests, and mixed effects models. Observed 9-month patient retention rates were 94/138 (68.1%) in the intervention group and 91/138 (65.9%) in the control group. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle.

resultsBoth the cooling intervention and control group experienced statistically significant decreases in unadjusted and adjusted mean NRS pain scores of 1.2 (95% CI: (-1.82, -0.64); p < 0.0001) and 1.8 (95% CI: (-2.31, -1.24); p < 0.0001) respectively from baseline, however, no statistically significant differences in change scores were observed between groups. The unadjusted mean VEINES-QOL/Sym pain scores had statistically significant decreases of 0.9 ((95% CI: (-1.07, -0.62) p < 0.0001 cooling)) and 0.8 (95% CI: (-1.09, -0.55) p < 0.0001 - control) points. When adjusting the scores for demographic and clinical features, both cooling and control groups maintained statistically significant decreases (p < 0.001 for both). No statistically significant differences in change scores were observed between groups. The unadjusted and adjusted mean self-efficacy scores had no statistically significant improvements from baseline to month 9 within and between the cooling and control groups.

conclusionsPain was reduced in both groups while self-efficacy did not change. Findings suggest that strictly implemented standard of CVeD care in each study group, with or without cooling, improved pain while there were no effects on self-efficacy.

Indexed as

CryotherapySelf EfficacySelf-ManagementAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansLegMaleMiddle AgedPainPain ManagementSeverity of Illness IndexVenous InsufficiencyChronic venous diseaseCooling therapyPain managementSelf-efficacySymptom assessment

Identifiers

PMID29957362
PMCPMC6186183
OpenAlexW2799378082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.