Effect of Noncontact LowFrequency Ultrasound on Wound Healing: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Recent research suggests the use of noncontact low-frequency ultrasound (US) as an adjunct to standard wound care to facilitate the healing process. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effect of noncontact low-frequency US on the healing of chronic wounds. Methods: CINHAL and PubMed were used to identify studies published from 2000 to 2011 written in English with the key words ultrasound and debridement, chronic wounds, ultrasonic-assisted wound treatment, and MIST Therapy®, resulting in the retrieval of 51 potential articles. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Two reviewers independently rated study quality and extracted data concerning study methods, quality, and outcomes. Results: Nine of the studies reviewed demonstrated improved wound healing when noncontact low-frequency US was used either as the sole treatment or as an adjunct to standard wound care, whereas the findings of one study were inconclusive. Discussion/Conclusions: The literature reviewed supports the use of noncontact low-frequency US as an adjunct in the treatment of chronic wounds. The studies reviewed suggest that noncontact low-frequency US aids in the reduction of wound volume and that healing occurs at a faster rate than with standard wound care alone. Evidence is limited by the existence of only two studies with control groups. Future research should use comparison groups and focus on dosing parameters, outcomes on the basis of the wound type, and other meaningful patient outcomes such as wound pain or cost of treatment.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".