Observational studyInternational wound journal2026
Temporal Assessment of Pressure and Stiffness in Compression Therapy for Venous Leg Ulcers: Implications for Clinical Optimization.
Observational study in International wound journal, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To measure and compare the temporal variations in sub-bandage pressure compression systems in the Andalusian Health System (SAS). Additional objectives included assessing the relationship between pressure and healing, analysing the influence of the healthcare professional applying the bandage, and determining bandage stiffness. This prospective observational and multicentre study included 140 patients with active VLUs in Andalusia. Sub-bandage pressures were measured at three anatomical points in the leg for 96 h, under different positions and activities. The bandage application technique was standardised through specific training provided to advanced practice nurses. The initial pressures were higher than those recommended by guidelines, but showed a notable reduction within the first 24 h, stabilising within therapeutic ranges for the remainder of the 96-h study period. Most systems showed low dynamic and static stiffness. No significant pressure differences were found attributable to the nurses or the location of the injury. The observed pressure dynamics, initially high, with a subsequent drop and final stabilisation, suggest a high material settlement or application to compensate for the expected loss. The sustained pressure stability confirms the effectiveness of the systems over 96 h.
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.