Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2017
Handcrafted Vacuum-Assisted Device for Skin Ulcers Treatment Versus Traditional Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02512159 (Effectiveness of Topical Negative Handicraft Device for Versus Traditional Conservative Treatment in Skin Ulcers Management in Lower Limb), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Effectiveness of Topical Negative Handicraft Device for Versus Traditional Conservative Treatment in Skin Ulcers Management in Lower Limb
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Insights into the mechanisms of diabetic wounds: pathophysiology, molecular targets, and treatment strategies through conventional and alternative therapies.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Review
- Therapeutic role of growth factors in treating diabetic wound.World journal of diabetes · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy on chronic wound healing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Belitung nursing journal · 2022Article
- Diabetic Wound-Healing Science.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic lower limb ulcers constitute a public health problem, with important socioeconomic implications and high attention cost. This trial evaluates handcrafted vacuum-assisted therapy versus traditional treatment effectiveness for lower limbs ulcers. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt was a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted over 144 patients with lower limbs ulcers. Patients were randomized into two groups of 72 patients: Experimental group were treated with debridement, cure and a handcrafted vacuum-assisted device that was changed every 72 h. Control group was treated with debridement and cure with soap every 24 h. Ulcers were evaluated every 72 h and on 10th day. The presence of systemic inflammatory response, pain, granulation tissue and viability for discharge was registered and analyzed .
resultsAfter exclusion of 18 patients, 126 were included, 65.1% were men with an average of 58 years. Sole region ulcer by diabetic foot was the more frequent in both groups (73%). Leukocytes count, systemic inflammatory response and pain were significantly lower in experimental group (p < 0.05). Discharge criteria and granulation tissue were present earlier in experimental group (p < 0.05).
conclusionHandcrafted vacuum-assisted system is a feasible and safe method to treat chronic ulcers. This system would benefit patients favoring earlier infection control, faster granulation tissue appearance and earlier discharge. Clinical trials registered in https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Number NCT02512159.
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.