Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcers

Open access
Nelson, E Andrea, Mani, Raj, Vowden, Kathryn·2008·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is a mechanical method of delivering compression to swollen limbs that can be used to treat venous leg ulcers and limb swelling due to lymphoedema. This review analyses the evidence for the effectiveness of IPC as a treatment for venous leg ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether IPC increases the healing of venous leg ulcers. To determine the effects of IPC on health related quality of life of venous leg ulcer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2007); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007; Ovid MEDLINE - 2006 to November Week 2 2007; Ovid EMBASE - 2006 to 2007 Week 49 and Ovid CINAHL - 2006 to December Week 1 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies either comparing IPC with control (sham IPC or no IPC) or comparisons between IPC treatment regimens, in venous ulcer management were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by one author and checked by a second. MAIN RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (including 367 people in total) were identified. Only one trial reported both allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment. In one trial (80 people) more ulcers healed with IPC than with dressings (62% vs 28%; p=0.002). Four trials compared IPC with compression against compression alone. The first of these trials (45 people) found increased ulcer healing with IPC plus compression than with compression alone (relative risk for healing 11.4, 95% Confidence Interval 1.6 to 82). The remaining three trials (122 people) found no evidence of a benefit for IPC plus compression compared with compression alone. One small trial (16 people) found no difference between IPC (without additional compression) and compression bandages alone. One trial compared different ways of delivering IPC (104 people) and found that rapid IPC healed more ulcers than slow IPC (86% vs 61%; log rank p=0.003). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IPC may increase healing compared with no compression, but it is not clear whether it increases healing when added to treatment with bandages, or if it can be used instead of compression bandages. Rapid IPC was better than slow IPC in one trial. Further trials are required to determine whether IPC increases the healing of venous leg ulcers when used in modern practice where compression therapy is widely used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001899.pub2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Nelson, E. A., Mani, R., & Vowden, K.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2008-04-23
Volume
2014
Issue
6
Pages
CD001899-CD001899
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4236714361
Cited by
226
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001899.pub2
The paper
Nelson, E. A., Mani, R., & Vowden, K. (2008). Intermittent pneumatic compression for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001899.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.