Evidence Hub

Presence of Differences in the Radiofrequency Parameters Applied to Complex Pressure Ulcers: A Secondary Analysis

M. Á. Barbas-Monjo, E. A. Sánchez-Romero, J. Villafañe, Lidia Martínez-Rolando, Jara Velasco García Cuevas, J. Cuenca-Zaldívar

Medicina, 2023

36 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers are a public health problem given the impact that they have on morbidity, mortality and the quality of life and participation of patients who suffer from them. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the presence of differences in the radiofrequency parameters applied to complex pressure ulcers throughout the sessions and between the right and left leg. As a secondary objective, the subjective perceptions of the effects of the treatment by both the patients and the practitioner were analyzed. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study involving 36 patients from the Hospital de Guadarrama in Madrid, Spain, who presented ulcers in the lower limbs. Ten treatment sessions of radiofrequency were administered with a frequency of one session/week, collecting the data referring to the variables in each of the sessions. The main outcome variables were the radiofrequency parameters automatically adjusted in each session and that referred to the frequency (Hz), maximum and average power (W), absorbed energy by the ulcer (J/cm2) and temperature (°C) reached by the tissues. On the other hand, the subjective perception of the results was evaluated using the Global Response Assessment (GRA), a Likert-type scale that scores the treatment results from 1 (significantly worse) to 5 (significantly better). Likewise, the satisfaction of both the patients and the professional were evaluated using a 10-point numerical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 36 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free