Summary of findings 2. Hydrogel dressings compared with alginate gel for venous leg ulcers healing.
| Hydrogel dressings compared to alginate gel for venous leg ulcers healing | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with venous leg ulcers Setting: hospital Intervention: hydrogel dressings Comparison: alginate gel | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with alginate gel | Risk with hydrogel dressings | |||||
| Complete wound healing | Not reported. | |||||
| Incidence of wound infection | Not reported. | |||||
| Change in ulcer size: percent reduction in ulcer area at 4 weeks | The mean percentage reduction in ulcer area at 4 weeks was 61.2% | The mean percentage reduction in ulcer area at 4 weeks was 19.4% | MD 41.80% lower (63.95 lower to 19.65 lower) | 20 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | It is uncertain if there is any difference in percentage of ulcer reduction comparing hydrogel and alginate gel. |
| Time‐to‐ulcer healing | Not reported. | |||||
| Health‐related quality of life | Not reported. | |||||
| Costs | Not reported. | |||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (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; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded twice for risk of bias due to high risk for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, and unclear risk for randomisation and allocation. bDowngraded once for imprecision due to small sample size.