Electrical stimulation (ES) has been tested for decades to improve chronic wound healing. However, uncertainty remains on the magnitude of the efficacy and on the best applicable protocol. We conducted an effect size meta‐analysis to assess the overall efficacy of ES on wound healing, to compare the efficacy of the different modalities of electrical stimulation, and to determine whether efficacy differs depending on the wound etiology, size, and age of the chronic wound. Twenty‐nine randomized clinical trials with 1,510 patients and 1,753 ulcers were selected. Overall efficacy of ES on would healing was a 0.72 SMD (95% CI: 0.48, 1) corresponding to a moderate to large effect size. We found that unidirectional high voltage pulsed current (HVPC) with the active electrode over the wound was the best evidence‐based protocol to improve wound healing with a 0.8 SMD (95% CI: 0.38, 1.21), while evaluation of the efficacy of direct current was limited by the small number of studies. ES was more effective on pressure ulcers compared to venous and diabetic ulcers, and efficacy trended to be inversely associated with the wound size and duration. This study confirms the overall efficacy of ES to enhance healing of chronic wounds and highlights the superiority of HVPC over other type of currents, which is more effective on pressure ulcers, and inversely associated with the wound size and duration. This will enable to standardize future ES practices.