The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To estimate the clinical and cost effectiveness of compression systems for treating venous leg ulcers. Methods: Systematic review of research. Search of 19 electronic databases including Medline, CINAHL, and Embase. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were hand searched and experts were consulted. Main outcome measures: Rate of healing and proportion of ulcers healed within a time period. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, with no restriction on date or language, that evaluated compression as a treatment for venous leg ulcers. Results: 24 randomised controlled trials were included in the review. The research evidence was quite weak: many trials had inadequate sample size and generally poor methodology. Compression seems to increase healing rates. Various high compression regimens are more effective than low compression. Few trials have compared the effectiveness of different high compression systems. Conclusions: Compression systems improve the healing of venous leg ulcers and should be used routinely in uncomplicated venous ulcers. Insufficient reliable evidence exists to indicate which system is the most effective. More good quality randomised controlled trials in association with economic evaluations are needed, to ascertain the most cost effective system for treating venous leg ulcers. Key messages: Compression treatment increases the healing of ulcers compared with no compression High compression is more effective than low compression but should only be used in the absence of significant arterial disease No clear differences in the effectiveness of different types of compression systems (multilayer and short stretch bandages and Unna's boot) have been shown Intermittent pneumatic compression appears to be a useful adjunct to bandaging Rather than advocate one particular system, the increased use of any correctly applied high compression treatment should be promoted
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
Compression for venous leg ulcers
Cullum, N., Nelson, E., Fletcher, A., & Sheldon, T. (2001) · The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000265 · Cited by 279
Self-citationZamboni, P., Cisno, C., Marchetti, F., Mazza, P., Fogato, L., Carandina, S., De Palma, M., & Liboni, A. (2003) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1053/ejvs.2002.1871 · Cited by 152
Vangronsveld, K. L., & Linton, S. J. (2012) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.009 · Cited by 91
Venous leg ulcer clinical practice guidelines: what is AGREEd?
Tan, M. K. H., Luo, R., Onida, S., Maccatrozzo, S., & Davies, A. H. (2019) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.08.043 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Fletcher, A., Cullum, N., & Sheldon, T. A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1997-09-06
- Volume
- 315
- Issue
- 7108
- Pages
- 576-580
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1993810255
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.84
- Type
- journal article
- 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: A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7108.576
- The paper
- Fletcher, A., Cullum, N., & Sheldon, T. A. (1997). A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7108.576
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.