Summary of findings 4. Hydrogel dressing compared with hydrocolloid for venous ulcer healing.
| Hydrogel dressing compared to hydrocolloid for venous ulcer healing | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with venous leg ulcers Setting: not reported Intervention: hydrogel dressing Comparison: hydrocolloid | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with hydrocolloid | Risk with hydrogel | |||||
| Complete ulcer healing | Not reported. | |||||
| Incidence of wound infection | Not reported. | |||||
| Change in ulcer size | The authors reported percent change in ulcer size after 4 weeks; however, further analysis was not possible because authors did not report standard error or standard deviation for the means. | — | 84 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | It is uncertain if there is any difference in change in ulcer size comparing hydrogel and hydrocolloid. | |
| 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; 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 of attrition bias and other bias. bDowngraded twice due to small numbers of participants and methodological issues reporting confidence intervals.