Effect of Electrical Stimulation on Chronic Leg Ulcer Size and Appearance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Electrical current has been recommended for use on chronic pressure ulcers; however, the ability of this modality to improve healing of other types of chronic ulcers is less well established. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC) on healing of chronic leg ulcers. SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven people with 42 chronic leg ulcers participated in the study. METHODS: The subjects were separated into subgroups according to primary etiology of the wound (diabetes, arterial insufficiency, venous insufficiency) and then randomly assigned to receive either HVPC (100 microseconds, 150 V, 100 Hz) or a sham treatment for 45 minutes, 3 times weekly, for 4 weeks. Wound surface area and wound appearance were assessed during an initial examination, following a 1- to 2-week period during which subjects received only conventional wound therapy, after 4 weeks of sham or HVPC treatment, and at 1 month following treatments. RESULTS: The results indicated that HVPC applied to chronic leg ulcers reduced the wound surface area over the 4-week treatment period to approximately one half the initial wound size (mean decrease=44.3%, SD=8.8%, range=2.8%-100%), which was over 2 times greater than that observed in wounds treated with sham units (mean decrease=16.0%, SD=8.9%, range=-30.3%-83.7%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that HVPC administered 3 times a week should be considered to accelerate wound closure of chronic leg ulcers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".