Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24132761›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.

Jo C Dumville, Robert J Hinchliffe, Nicky Cullum, Fran Game, Nikki Stubbs, Michael Sweeting, Frank Peinemann

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Debridement of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Advances in wound care · 2022
    Review
  17. Malaysian clinical practice guidelines for management of diabetic foot: A synopsis for the primary care physician.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jo C DumvilleDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL.
Robert J Hinchliffe
Nicky Cullum
Fran Game
Nikki Stubbs
Michael Sweeting
Frank Peinemann
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt. Mary’s Hospital · ZAUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus (DM) are a common and serious global health issue. Negative pressure wound therapy can be used to treat these wounds and a clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use.

objectivesTo assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care or other adjuvant therapies in the healing of foot wounds in people with DM. SEARCH

methodsIn July 2013, we searched the following databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); The NHS Economic Evaluation Database; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished RCTs that evaluate the effects of any brand of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of foot wounds in people with diabetes, irrespective of publication date or language of publication. Particular effort was made to identify unpublished studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN

resultsWe included five studies in this review randomising 605 participants. Two studies (total of 502 participants) compared negative pressure wound therapy with standard moist wound dressings. The first of these was conducted in people with DM and post-amputation wounds and reported that significantly more people healed in the negative pressure wound therapy group compared with the moist dressing group: (risk ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.01). The second study, conducted in people with debrided foot ulcers, also reported a statistically significant increase in the proportion of ulcers healed in the negative pressure wound therapy group compared with the moist dressing group: (risk ratio 1.49; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.01). However, these studies were noted to be at risk of performance bias, so caution is required in their interpretation. Findings from the remaining three studies provided limited data, as they were small, with limited reporting, as well as being at unclear risk of bias. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is some evidence to suggest that negative pressure wound therapy is more effective in healing post-operative foot wounds and ulcers of the foot in people with DM compared with moist wound dressings. However, these findings are uncertain due to the possible risk of bias in the original studies. The limitations in current RCT evidence suggests that further trials are required to reduce uncertainty around decision making regarding the use of NPWT to treat foot wounds in people with DM.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalBandagesWound HealingDebridementDiabetic FootHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24132761
OpenAlexW1511294359

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.