ReviewInternational wound journal2024
Effects of electromagnetic therapy in treating patients with venous leg ulcers: An overview of systematic reviews.
Review in International wound journal, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of electromagnetic therapy in treating patients with venous leg ulcers: An overview of systematic reviews.International wound journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the effects of electromagnetic therapy (EMT) on the treatment of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) by synthesising and appraising available meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases up to 10 January 2024, focusing on SRs/MAs that investigated the use of EMT for VLUs. Selection criteria followed the PICO framework, and dual-author extraction was used for accuracy. Quality assessment tools included AMSTAR2, ROBIS, PRISMA, and GRADE. The search yielded five eligible studies. The reviews collectively presented moderate methodological quality and a low risk of bias in several domains. Reporting quality was high, albeit with inconsistencies in fulfilling certain PRISMA checklist items. The evidence quality, primarily downgraded due to small sample sizes, was rated as moderate. Whilst some studies suggest potential benefits of EMT in the treatment of VLUs, the overall evidence is inconclusive due to methodological limitations and limited sample sizes. This review underscores the need for future research with more rigorous methodologies and larger cohorts to provide clearer insights into the efficacy of EMT for VLUs.
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.