Trial reportInternational wound journal2026
Assessing the Impact of a Training Intervention on Venous Compression Bandaging Application: A Factorial Design Randomised Trial.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Venous leg ulcers (VLU) are a major complication of chronic venous disease, with compression therapy as the gold-standard treatment. This 2 × 2 factorial randomised open-label trial assessed the effect and three-month sustainability of a one-hour training intervention on compression bandaging quality among 50 advanced practice nursing students (APNS) in France, using two different compression bandage types (system A or system B) on a mannequin leg. The primary outcome was the Control Score of compression bandaging (CCB score, 0-7). Secondary outcomes included installation conformity, application time, and satisfaction. At baseline, mean CCB score was 3.78, with 52% installation conformity. The intervention did not significantly improve the CCB score compared to controls (adjusted difference: -0.43; 95% CI: -1.01 to 0.15). A significant interaction between bandage type and intervention was found for installation conformity: a tendency to improve with system B and decrease with system A. Improvements observed at 1 month were not sustained at 3 months. Application time decreased over follow-up, and system B was applied more efficiently than system A. Brief, behaviourist-based training was insufficient to achieve lasting skill improvement. Findings highlight the need for repeated group practice, feedback, and integration into relevant clinical contexts to enhance compression bandaging proficiency.
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.