ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Electrical Stimulation Therapies for Diabetic Ulcers: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. 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.
- Smart Polymeric Wound Dressings for Wound Treatment: Contributions and Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetic ulcers (DUs) are a common complication of diabetes, significantly impairing quality of life and placing a burden on healthcare systems. Electrical stimulation (ES) therapy is a non-invasive technique that promotes wound healing using various current types, including direct current (DC), pulsed current (PC), and alternating current (AC). However, the comparative efficacy and safety of these ES modalities for DUs remain unclear.
methodsThis study presents a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of various ES therapies for DU treatment. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies evaluating ulcer healing rates, the number of healed ulcers, and adverse events. The treatments analyzed included symmetry biphasic square-wave pulse, asymmetric biphasic square-wave pulse, very low levels of stimulation current, twin-peak monophasic pulse, cathodal direct current (CDC), high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC), and low-intensity biphasic pulse current. The SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) and mean rank values were used to assess the relative effectiveness of each modality.
resultsThe analysis included data from 11 RCTs. Treatment effects were compared using SUCRA and mean ranking values. HVPC, CDC, and asymmetric biphasic square-wave pulse were ranked highest for ulcer healing rates and the number of healed ulcers, with asymmetric biphasic square-wave pulse demonstrating the most consistent efficacy across these outcomes.
conclusionThis network meta-analysis suggests that HVPC, CDC, and asymmetric biphasic square-wave pulse are the most effective ES therapies for promoting DU healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41014485What 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.