OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 10 June 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to 10 June 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 10 June 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2014 to 10 June 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2014 to 6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this third update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 November 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE (2011 to November Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, November 12, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2011 to 2012 Week 45); and EBSCO CINAHL (2011 to 9 November 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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 variable quality 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. 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high quality evidence that electromagnetic therapy increases the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers, and further research is needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 July 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 11, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 27); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether electromagnetic therapy influences the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers. Further research would be needed to answer this question.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study was performed in 120 female subjects at least 21 years old with stress urinary incontinence. Treatment involved pulsed magnetic stimulation for 2 sessions per week for 2 months (16 sessions). After 2 months, subjects could opt for 16 additional sessions regardless of initial randomization. The primary response criterion was a 5-point reduction in the ICIQ-UI SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence-Short Form) score. Key secondary response criteria included objective and subjective cure, supplemented by other secondary criteria. Followups were performed at months 1, 2, 5, 8 and 14.
RESULTS: At 2 months 45 of 60 subjects (75%) in the active arm vs 13 of 60 (21.7%) in the sham arm were treatment responders (p <0.001). After 2 months 24 subjects (40%) in the active arm and 41 (68%) in the sham arm elected additional active pulsed magnetic stimulation. At 14 months, subjects who received 32 sessions of active pulsed magnetic stimulation had the highest percentage of treatment responders (18 of 24 or 75.0%), followed by those who received 16 sessions (26 of 36 or 72.2% and 28 of 41 or 68.3%) and those who did not receive any active pulsed magnetic stimulation (4 of 19 or 21.1%) (p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The encouraging long-term response rates show that pulsed magnetic stimulation is an attractive nonsurgical alternative for patients who do not want to undergo surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified RCTs for SUI interventions published between January 2015 and July 2017. We listed the objective and subjective outcome measures used in eligible trials in the literature search. Using data from our RCT conducted from 2013 to 2016 evaluating pulsed magnetic stimulation for SUI, we analysed the correlation between all measures.
RESULTS: A total of 45 RCTs were included; 28 (62%) involved surgical interventions. The most frequently used objective and subjective measures were the cough stress test and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF), respectively. In all, 24 different validated questionnaires were administered in the 42 studies that used subjective outcome measure. Analyses of measures used in our trial showed that all measures were significantly correlated with each other except for pelvic floor muscle function. The ICIQ-UI SF showed the highest correlation coefficients (0.587-0.733) with all outcome measures.
CONCLUSION: The outcome measures used in recent trials were inconsistent. The ICIQ-UI SF had the highest correlation with all measures in our trial; however, further studies evaluating correlation of measures in other patient cohorts are needed to corroborate our present results. We propose the use of ICIQ-UI SF, as the most relevant outcome measure, in future trials evaluating efficacy of SUI interventions.