Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33556200›Full record

SynthesisWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2021

Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.

Kristen A Eckert, Marissa J Carter

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kristen A EckertStrategic Solutions, Inc, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Marissa J CarterStrategic Solutions, Inc, Bozeman, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2265-6639
Global Strategic Solutions (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre- and post-study power calculations were made. The step-up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre-2013 studies, and 2013/post-2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5-77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non-significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base.

Indexed as

Varicose UlcerWound HealingHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUncertaintyrandomized controlled trialsrisk of biastrial designuncertainty of outcomevenous leg ulcers

Identifiers

PMID33556200
PMCPMC7986240
OpenAlexW3127539431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.