ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2022
Efficacy of Low-frequency Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation Therapy in Undermining Pressure Injury: A Double-blind Crossover-controlled Study.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model-Based Financial Consequences of Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Pressure Injury Healing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Strategies for Chronic Cutaneous Ulcers: From Preclinical Nanotechnology to Clinical Practice.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Aesthetic Rehabilitation Medicine: Enhancing Wellbeing beyond Functional Recovery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Electrical stimulation facilitates NADPH production in pentose phosphate pathway and exerts an anti-inflammatory effect in macrophages.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Association between Patients' Body Mass Index and the Effect of Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation on Pressure Injury Healing.Biomedicines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This double-blind crossover-controlled trial aimed to verify the effect of electrical stimulation therapy on pressure injuries with undermining. Methods: : In this trial, we compared the healing rates between a sham period and a treatment period using monophasic pulsed microcurrent therapy. The participants were randomly assigned to the sham or treatment group and received stimulation for 2 weeks. All the participants, physical therapists, and researchers were blinded to the allocation. For the main analysis, data on the effect of the intervention on changes in weekly healing and contraction rates of the wound areas, including undermining, were analyzed based on a two-period crossover study design. The intervention effect was estimated by examining the mean treatment difference for each period using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. Results: : The reduction of the entire wound area, including the undermining area, resulted in significantly higher healing and contraction rates in the treatment group (overall wound area reduction rate: contraction rate, P=0.008; period healing rate, P=0.002). Conclusions: : Electrical stimulation therapy for pressure injuries, using conditions based on the findings of an in vivo culture study, was effective in reducing the wound area.
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.