Table 2.
Agreement between direct and indirect comparisons of nodal analysis of healing rates for different types of dressings.
| Comparison group | Direct comparison | Indirect comparison | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | SD | OR | SD | ||
| A vs. B | 1.957 | 0.693 | 1.916 | 0.918 | 0.884 |
| A vs. C | 1.379 | 0.816 | 1.167 | 1.221 | 0.885 |
| A vs. E | 1.303 | 0.546 | 2.352 | 1.249 | 0.442 |
| A vs. F | 1.812 | 0.763 | 1.694 | 1.204 | 1.428 |
| A vs. G | 1.192 | 0.600 | 2.188 | 0.950 | 0.374 |
| A vs. I | 1.156 | 0.410 | 2.383 | 1.890 | 0.289 |
| B vs. E | 1.341 | 1.128 | 0.292 | 0.766 | 0.442 |
| B vs. F | 0.865 | 1.074 | 0.983 | 0.941 | 0.934 |
| B vs. G | 2.539 | 1.470 | 0.150 | 0.724 | 0.145 |
| B vs. I | 1.079 | 1.085 | 0.209 | 0.682 | 0.497 |
| C vs. G | 0.281 | 1.086 | 0.068 | 0.987 | 0.885 |
| G vs. I | 0.770 | 1.326 | -0.435 | 0.698 | 0.423 |
Notes: A: conventional dressing; B: alginate dressing; C: chitosan dressing; D: HA dressing; E: PRP dressing; F: dHACM dressing; G: honey dressing; H: hrEGF dressing; I: silver ion dressing.