ArticleBMJ open2019
Assessment of the use of Unna boot in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers in adults: systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is an anomaly of the normal functioning of the venous system caused by valvular incompetence with or without the obstruction of venous flow. This condition can affect either or both of the superficial and the deep venous systems. Venous dysfunction can even result in congenital or acquired disorders, and its complications include venous leg ulcers (VLUs). The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of Unna boot in the treatment of wound healing of VLU by assessing the quality of the available evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BVS/BIREME, Embase, ProQuest, BDTD, Thesis and Dissertation Catalog, Sao Paulo Research Foundation/Thesis and dissertation, OPEN THESIS, A service of the US National Institute of Health, Center for Reviews and Dissemination-University of New York and SciElo published in the last 10 years, the period from January 1999 to March 2019. The review will include primary studies (original), and Controlled Trials or Observational studies (cross-sectional, case-control or longitudinal studies) with VLU. The exclusion will include leg ulceration due to different causes, such as pressure, arterial, diabetic or mixed-aetiology leg ulcers. Data synthesis will be performed using a narrative summary and quantitative analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require approval by the ethics committee, as individual patient data will not be collected. Dissemination of findings will be through publications in peer-reviewed journals and/or via conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127947.
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.