ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Pharmacological Pain Management in Adults with Venous Ulceration: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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.
- Pharmacological Pain Management in Adults with Venous Ulceration: A Systematic Review.Journal of pain research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Venous ulceration (VU) is a chronic lower limb wound caused by sustained venous hypertension. Treatment includes compression therapy, wound care and surgical intervention. Due to the prolonged nature of wound healing, patients experience a substantial burden on quality of life, largely influenced by pain. Existing literature generalises findings across all chronic wounds and there are no published reviews or specific guidelines informing pharmacological pain management for patients with VU. Methods: Five databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for VU pain, published in English between 2000 and 2024. The CASP appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of publications, and findings are reporting descriptively and following PRISMA guidance. Results: Initial literature searches yielded 1,161 references, of which 447 were duplicates. Once screening was complete, thirteen studies were included in this evaluation. The majority (10/13) were randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with standard care. Small sample sizes and poor reporting quality were common across all papers, and overall limits the evidence. Eight studies evaluated ibuprofen-impregnated dressings, all reporting some degree of pain reduction. Three studies investigated localized oxygen therapy, demonstrating improved wound healing outcomes. However, pain reduction was not statistically significant and may be secondary to healing. The remaining two studies examined topical sevoflurane and aspirin. Sevoflurane showed pain reduction over time in a single, low-quality retrospective study. The aspirin trial was inconclusive due to poor recruitment and underpowering. Conclusion: Currently, there is a lack of high-quality studies, evaluating the pharmacological treatment of pain in people experiencing VU. While there may be some evidence to support the use of topical agents such as ibuprofen, further industry-independent efficacy studies and cost analyses are required. Further research is also required to compare standard of care to commonly used agents such as oral paracetamol.
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.