Gardner S E, Frantz R A, Schmidt F L
Colleges of Nursing, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-7066, USA.
Wound Repair Regen. 1999 Nov-Dec;7(6):495-503. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-475x.1999.00495.x.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of electrical stimulation on chronic wound healing. Fifteen studies, which included 24 electrical stimulation samples and 15 control samples, were analyzed. The average rate of healing per week was calculated for the electrical stimulation and control samples. Ninety-five percentage confidence intervals were also calculated. The samples were then grouped by type of electrical stimulation device and chronic wound and reanalyzed. Rate of healing per week was 22% for electrical stimulation samples and 9% for control samples. The net effect of electrical stimulation was 13% per week, an increase of 144% over the control rate. The 95% confidence intervals of the electrical stimulation (18-26%) and control samples (3.8-14%) did not overlap. Electrical stimulation was most effective on pressure ulcers (net effect = 13%). Findings regarding the relative effectiveness of different types of electrical stimulation device were inconclusive. Although electrical stimulation produces a substantial improvement in the healing of chronic wounds, further research is needed to identify which electrical stimulation devices are most effective and which wounds respond best to this treatment.
本荟萃分析的目的是量化电刺激对慢性伤口愈合的影响。分析了15项研究，其中包括24个电刺激样本和15个对照样本。计算了电刺激样本和对照样本每周的平均愈合率。还计算了95%置信区间。然后按电刺激设备类型和慢性伤口类型对样本进行分组并重新分析。电刺激样本每周的愈合率为22%，对照样本为9%。电刺激的净效应为每周13%，比对照率增加了144%。电刺激样本（18 - 26%）和对照样本（3.8 - 14%）的95%置信区间没有重叠。电刺激对压疮最有效（净效应 = 13%）。关于不同类型电刺激设备相对有效性的研究结果尚无定论。尽管电刺激能显著促进慢性伤口的愈合，但仍需进一步研究以确定哪种电刺激设备最有效，以及哪种伤口对这种治疗反应最佳。
