Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26505864›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

Jian Liu, Peng Zhang, Jing Tian, Lun Li, Jun Li, Jin Hui Tian, KeHu Yang

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Ozone Therapy for Dermatological Conditions: A Systematic Review.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jian LiuCritical Care Medicine Department, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, No 1 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China, 730000.
Peng Zhang
Jing Tian
Lun Li
Jun Li
Jin Hui Tian
KeHu Yang
Lanzhou University · CNNanyang Institute of Technology · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been reported that ozone therapy might be helpful in treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus (DM).

objectivesTo assess the effects of ozone therapy on the healing of foot ulcers in people with DM. SEARCH

methodsIn March 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and The Chinese Clinical Registry. There were no restrictions based on language, date or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ozone therapy with sham ozone therapy or any other interventions for foot ulcers in people with DM, irrespective of publication date or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened all retrieved citations, selected relevant citations and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of included studies and the evidence level of outcomes were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach respectively. Data were expressed using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Review Manager (RevMan) software was used to analyse the data. MAIN

resultsThree studies (212 participants) were included in this review. The overall risk of bias was high for two trials and unclear for one.One trial (101 participants) compared ozone treatment with antibiotics for foot ulcers in people with DM. The study had a follow-up period of 20 days. This study showed that ozone treatment was associated with a greater reduction in ulcer area from baseline to the end of the study than treatment with antibiotics (MD -20.54 cm(2), 95% CI -20.61 to -20.47), and a shorter duration of hospitalisation (MD -8.00 days, 95% CI -14.17 to -1.83), but did not appear to affect the number of ulcers healed over 20 days (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40). No side effects were observed in either group.The other two trials (111 participants) compared ozone treatment plus usual care with usual care for foot ulcers in people with DM. The meta-analysis results did not show evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes of reduction of ulcer area (MD -2.11 cm(2), 95% CI -5.29 to 1.07), the number of ulcers healed (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.17), adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 10.79), or amputation rate (RR 2.73, 95%CI 0.12, 64.42). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available evidence was three small RCTs with unclear methodology, so we are unable to draw any firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ozone therapy for foot ulcers in people with DM.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic FootHumansOzoneRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsOzone

Identifiers

PMID26505864
PMCPMC8246444
OpenAlexW1890218576

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.