SynthesisRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2024
Effect of Unna's boot on venous ulcer healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the effect of Unna's Boot on the healing of venous ulcers compared to other therapies.
methodsSystematic Review carried out in the databases Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences, and grey literature. Population - adult patients with venous ulcers; Intervention- Unna's Boot (UB); Control - other compression therapies (CT); Outcome- healing; Designs- randomized clinical trial, cohort study, and case control, published from 2001 to 2024. The effect of the intervention, risk of bias, and quality of evidence were evaluated. Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021290077).
resultsA total of 39 studies were included, with 5.151 patients. The majority (71.8%) were randomized controlled trials (RCT). UB was used as intervention/control in eight studies. When comparing CTs, only 1 study with UB showed a superior effect (p < .001) in healing, compared with high compression elastic bandage. In the quality of evidence analysis, 27 studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias.
conclusionNo superiority of UB was found in the healing of venous ulcers when compared to other CTs.
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.