The effect of high‐voltage monophasic pulsed current on diabetic ulcers and their potential pathophysiologic factors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract The present review was conducted to determine the efficacy of high‐voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) in treating diabetic ulcers, assess its effect on skin lesions with each of the pathophysiologic factors potentially contributing to diabetic ulcers, evaluate its safety, and identify treatment parameters. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro and Google Scholar databases was conducted. The revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2), the risk of bias in non‐randomised studies‐of interventions (ROBINS‐I) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool were used to assess risk of bias and methodological quality. Overall quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) principles. Thirty‐two studies matched the eligibility criteria, and included 1061 patients with 1103 skin lesions of selected aetiologies; 12 randomised controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. HVMPC plus standard wound care (SWC) likely increased the probability of complete wound healing of pressure ulcers (PrUs) compared with sham/no stimulation plus SWC; relative risk (RR) 2.08; 95% CI: [1.42, 3.04], p = 0.0002; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.61; eight studies, 358 ulcers. Although conclusive evidence regarding the effect of HVMPC on diabetic ulcers was not found, collateral evidence might suggest a potential benefit. Direct evidence, with moderate certainty, may support its efficacy in treating PrUs, albeit few adverse reactions were reported. Other observations, moreover, might indicate that this efficacy may not be limited to PrUs. Nonetheless, several aspects remain to be clarified for safe and effective application of electrical stimulation for wound healing.