Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10749622›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgery2000

Sequential cytokine therapy for pressure ulcers: clinical and mechanistic response.

M C Robson, D P Hill, P D Smith, X Wang, K Meyer-Siegler, F Ko, J S VandeBerg, W G Payne, D Ochs, L E Robson

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Why Are There So Few FDA-Approved Therapeutics for Wound Healing?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M C RobsonDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA.
D P Hill
P D Smith
X Wang
K Meyer-Siegler
F Ko
J S VandeBerg
W G Payne
D Ochs
L E Robson
University of South Florida · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · US

Funding

SEQUENTIAL CYTOKINE THERAPY FOR CHRONIC WOUNDSR01AR042967 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI ROBSON, MARTIN C · 1996 to 1998
–
NIAMS NIH HHS R0I-AR42967
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the healing response of sequential topically applied cytokines to that of each cytokine alone and to a placebo in pressure ulcers, and to evaluate the molecular and cellular responses. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Because of a deficiency of cytokine growth factors in chronic wounds and the reversal of impaired healing in animal models, pressure ulcer trials have been performed with several exogenously applied growth factors. Because single-factor therapy has not been uniformly successful, combination or sequential cytokine therapy has been proposed. Laboratory data have suggested that sequential treatment with granulocyte-macrophage/colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)/basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) might augment the previously reported effect of bFGF alone.

methodsA masked, randomized pressure ulcer trial was performed comparing sequential GM-CSF/bFGF therapy with that of each cytokine alone and with placebo during a 35-day period. The primary measure was wound volume decrease over time. Cytokine wound levels and mRNA levels were serially determined. Fibroblast-populated collagen lattices (FPCLs) were constructed from serial fibroblast biopsies. Cellular ultrastructure was evaluated by electron microscopy. Changes in ease of surgical closure and its relative cost were determined.

resultsUlcers treated with cytokines had greater closure than those in placebo-treated patients. Patients treated with bFGF alone did the best, followed by the GM-CSF/bFGF group. Patients treated with GM-CSF or bFGF had higher levels of their respective cytokine after treatment. Patients with the greatest amount of healing showed higher levels of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) on day 10 and transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta1) on day 36. Message for the bFGF gene was upregulated after treatment with exogenous bFGF, suggesting autoinduction of the cytokine. FPCLs did not mimic the wound responses. Ultrastructure of wound biopsies showed response to bFGF. Treatment with any of the cytokines improved the wound by allowing easier wound closure. This was most marked for the bFGF-alone treatment, with a cost savings of $9,000 to $9,200.

conclusionsTreatment with bFGF resulted in significantly greater healing than the other treatments in this trial. The clinical response appeared to be related to upregulation of the bFGF message and to increased levels of PDGF-AB, bFGF, and TGFbeta1 in the wounds and changes in ultrastructure. The resultant improvements could be correlated with cost savings.

Indexed as

Double-Blind MethodFibroblast Growth Factor 2Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansPressure UlcerRecombinant ProteinsTreatment OutcomeUp-RegulationWound HealingFibroblast Growth Factor 2Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating FactorRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID10749622
PMCPMC1421038
OpenAlexW2323310581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.