Summary of findings 2. Lively Legs programme compared with wounds outpatient clinic.
| Lively Legs programme versus outpatient wound clinic | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people with venous leg ulcers
Settings: community
Intervention: Lively Legs programme Comparison: wounds outpatient clinic | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Lively Legs programme versus outpatient wound clinic | |||||
| Time to healing ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Not reported |
| Number of people healed Follow‐up: 18 months | 45 per 100 | 55 per 100 (41 to 74) | RR 1.24 (0.93 to 1.67) | 184 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Adverse events ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Adverse events were not reported, unclear if measured |
| Recurrence of ulcers Follow‐up: 18 months | 57 per 100 | 47 per 100 (33 to 65) | RR 0.82 (0.59 to 1.14) | 136 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Quality of life ‐ not reported | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Not reported |
| Adherence to compression Follow‐up: 18 months | 45 per 100 | 45 per 100 (31 to 66) | RR 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) | 184 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Pain ‐ not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | Not measured |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Trialists failed to report randomisation method and allocation concealment 2 Low number of participants; 95% confidence interval includes both no effect and appreciable benefit