SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2011
Interventions for wound healing among diabetic patients infected with Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro activity of Houttuynia cordata against bacteria isolated from diabetic foot.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC medicine · 2015Review
- Phytocompounds and modulatory effects of Anacardium microcarpum (cajui) on antibiotic drugs used in clinical infections.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with wound colonization by Staphylococcus spp. and Staphylococcus aureus in hospitalized patients in inland northeastern Brazil: a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Influence of microbiome species in hard-to-heal wounds on disease severity and treatment duration.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectiveStaphylococcus aureus is the most frequent agent isolated in diabetic foot infections and may be associated with changes to wound healing times. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature, including studies that assessed the efficacy of any clinical or surgical intervention, as well as oral or topical therapy for diabetic ulcers infected with S. aureus. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review with a search conducted in databases.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review with a comprehensive search in the Lilacs, SciELO, PubMed/Medline, Old Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, for articles published from 1966 to 2010. The articles selected were limited to studies on diabetic patients with wounds infected with S. aureus for whom their healing was followed up, with the use of either antibiotics or experimental treatments. Animal studies and those that did not report the wound healing, as well as review articles, were excluded.
resultsFive studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed.
conclusionsThere are few studies reporting the healing of wounds infected with S. aureus in diabetic patients, although this is the most commonly found pathogen in this type of wound and it frequently consists of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). There is insufficient evidence to support early use of broad-spectrum antibiotics against MRSA to promote healing of diabetic ulcers, since antibiotic resistance may develop from such treatment. This highlights the need for further studies on the subject.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.