The mechanisms and evidence of efficacy of electrical stimulation for healing of pressure ulcer: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the efficacy of electrical stimulation in healing pressure ulcer and to review its mechanism of action. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, and NHS EED were searched for relevant interventional studies including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results of the included studies. A total of seven RCTs and two observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Moderate level of evidence of efficacy with low risk of bias was shown in all seven RCTs. Although some studies have used continuous direct current, most other investigators opted to use high-voltage pulsed current to minimize the risk of skin burn and to achieve greater current penetration. Overall, the incidence of adverse effects was very low. Two studies that assessed the economic impacts of electrical stimulation revealed substantial health care cost savings. The mechanisms through which electrical stimulation exerts a positive effect on pressure ulcer healing are reasonably well established. Clinical trials have revealed a moderate level of evidence to support its use as an ancillary treatment modality for healing pressure ulcer. Recommendations regarding the optimal electrical stimulation parameters and dosage of use are provided. Further studies to investigate potential barriers that may impede widespread use in different clinical settings are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it