External validity of randomized controlled trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration: A systematic review: A systematic review

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We set out to evaluate quality of reporting of data related to external validity from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment interventions for active venous leg ulcers. Using a systematic review study design, we identified 144 full-text RCTs of treatment interventions, where the wound was assessed and published in English from 1998 to 2018. We found that the median study sample size was 75.5. Weighted mean wound size was 13.22 cm(2) and weighted mean wound duration was 22.20 months. Forty-six (32%) reported numbers screened for eligibility and 27 (19%) reported the number who declined to participate; 19 (13%) reported on patient ethnicity; 60 (42%) reported comorbidities; and 5 (4%) reported current medication use. When reported, 60 102 (59%) excluded patients with an ankle-brachial pressure index 0.8; 68 135 (50%) were conducted in Europe, 6 135 (4%) in Asia, and 74 104 (71%) were conducted in outpatient facilities; 3 (2%) reported socioeconomic factors and 88 (61%) reported on adverse events. We concluded that there is inadequate reporting of data related to external validity in reports of RCTs assessing venous leg ulcers treatment interventions. Significant variability exists in the ankle-brachial pressure index cutoff point for inclusion or exclusion, making generalizability difficult to assess.
Original languageEnglish (Ireland)
Pages (from-to)702-710
Number of pages0
JournalWound Repair And Regeneration
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019

Authors (Note for portal: view the doc link for the full list of authors)

  • Authors
  • Gethin, G;Ivory, JD;Connell, L;McIntosh, C;Weller, CD

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'External validity of randomized controlled trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration: A systematic review: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this