SynthesisTrials2026
The measurement and reporting of healing-related outcomes in randomised controlled trials of compression for venous leg ulcers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Independent Prognostic Factors for Predicting Wound Healing in People With Venous Leg Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimVenous leg ulcers (VLUs) are the most prevalent type of leg ulcer and can be slow to heal. Compression therapy is a widespread, evidence-based treatment for people with VLUs, with many associated randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Healing-related outcomes are important in the field but there is currently limited insight on how these outcomes are captured and reported in RCTs. This review analyses the measurement and reporting of healing-related outcomes in RCTs of compression therapy in people with VLUs.
methodsThis systematic review followed the Cochrane guidelines and is reported in line with the PRISMA statement. RCTs of compression for people with VLUs were included. Five medical literature databases were searched (September 2024), and data were extracted on the type of healing outcomes assessed, the follow-up time, the used definitions of healing-related outcomes, the wound measurement techniques, and the use and techniques of assessor masking.
resultsThis review included 68 RCTs, reporting 158 healing-related outcomes. These outcomes commonly evaluated change in wound size (34%) or complete wound closure (59%). Only 44% of complete wound closure outcomes were accompanied by a clear definition, and those definitions varied. Change in wound size was measured by four techniques, with planimetry used most often (51%). Notably, 56% of healing-related outcomes were evaluated by healthcare professionals and none by patients. The use of assessor masking was limited: in 38% of cases outcomes were judged by unmasked assessors, and in 42% the masking status was unclear. Follow-up duration was most commonly between 90 days and 6 months.
conclusionThis is the first systematic review to investigate the measurement and reporting of healing-related outcomes in RCTs of compression therapy for people with VLUs. Although healing-related outcomes including complete wound closure were frequently used in the included RCTs, limitations in measuring and reporting were identified. These limitations included frequent collection of surrogate outcomes, limited follow-up periods, inconsistent use of outcome definitions, variation in wound measurement techniques, and lack of assessor masking. Development of a set of guidelines on the measurement and reporting of healing-related outcomes could help to address these limitations. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review has been registered on the Open Science Framework platform and can be viewed HERE .
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.