METHODS: This study, involving a series of N-of-1 trials, included 21 participants who had a history of neuropathic plantar forefoot ulcers. Participants were recruited from two public hospitals and one private podiatry clinic in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. This trial is non-randomised and unblinded. Participants will be recruited from three sites, including two high-risk foot services and a private podiatry clinic in Sydney, Australia. Mobilemat™ and F-Scan® plantar pressure mapping systems by TekScan® (Boston, USA) will be used to measure barefoot and in-shoe plantar pressures. Participants' self-reports will be used to quantify the wearing period over a certain period of between 2 and 4 weeks during the trial. Participant preference toward footwear, insole design and quality-of-life-related information will be collected and analysed. The descriptive and inferential statistical analyses will be performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27). And the software NVivo (version 12) will be utilised for the qualitative data analysis.

DISCUSSION: This is the first trial assessing footwear and insole interventions in people with diabetes by using a series of N-of-1 trials. Reporting self-declared wearing periods and participants' preferences on footwear style and aesthetics are the important approaches for this trial. Patient-centric device designs are the key to therapeutic outcomes, and this study is designed with that strategy in mind.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were employed. At least two review authors independently scrutinised search results and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies for further assessment. We extracted and summarised details of eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, and made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction, and we resolved disagreements after discussion between review authors.

MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low or unclear risk of bias, involving 94 people, were included in the original review; subsequent updates have identified no new trials. All the trials compared the use of EMT with sham-EMT. Meta-analysis of these trials was not possible due to heterogeneity. In the two trials that reported healing rates; one small trial (44 participants) reported that significantly more ulcers healed in the EMT group than the sham-EMT group however this result was not robust to different assumptions about the outcomes of participants who were lost to follow up. The second trial that reported numbers of ulcers healed found no significant difference in healing. The third trial was also small (31 participants) and reported significantly greater reductions in ulcer size in the EMT group however this result may have been influenced by differences in the prognostic profiles of the treatment groups.