Trial reportPloS one2024
The validity and safety of multispectral light emitting diode (LED) treatment on grade 2 pressure ulcer: Double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous pressure exacerbates ischemia-reperfusion injury in minipigs through the AKT/eNOS signaling pathway.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a perioperative risk prediction model for pressure ulcers in neurosurgical procedures: a machine learning approach with protocol compliance metrics.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe management of pressure ulcers (PUs) poses challenges due to their chronic nature and the lack of established conservative treatment methods. In this clinical trial, our objective was to examine the validity and safety of using a light-emitting diode device contained four wavelengths in the treatment of grade 2 sacral PUs.
methodA total of 38 patients were randomly assigned to two groups: sham device (Sham) and experimental device (LED) group. The treatment sessions were conducted over a period of four weeks, with a frequency of three times per week. The study was conducted in a double-blinded manner. The study assessed the primary validity by measuring wound size and re-epithelialization after 0 and 4 weeks. Secondary evaluations included epidermal regeneration, collagen density, and immunological markers. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse reactions throughout the trial.
resultThe presence of eschar was found to have a significant impact on wound healing. Sham consisted of 15 wounds without eschar, while LED had nine. After treatment in without eschar situation, the post-treatment size of wounds in Sham was 13.80 ± 20.29%, while it was 3.52 ± 6.68% in LED. However, there was no significant difference (p = 0.070). And analysis of epidermal thickness showed a significant increase in LED (495.62 ± 327.09 μm) compared to Sham (195.36 ± 263.04 μm) (p < 0.0001).
conclusionWhile LED treatment had a potential for wound reduction in PUs without eschar, we could not uncover evidence to support the efficacy of LED treatment in grade 2 PUs.
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.