Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31848923›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2020

Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Appraising Standard of Care and Reviewing New Trends in Management.

Paola C Aldana, Amor Khachemoune

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Research on the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer wounds].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Skin Micro-Fragments for the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Case Series.The international journal of lower extremity wounds · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paola C AldanaUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5659-2303
Amor KhachemouneVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA. amorkh@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5409-3201
SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are one of the most common diabetes complications and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current DFU standard of care (SOC) involves four principles: (1) pressure relief, (2) debridement, (3) infection management, and (4) revascularization when indicated. Despite the current SOC, many DFU persist, warranting a new approach for the management of these complex wounds. This review aims to summarize the current SOC as well as the latest trends in adjunctive therapies that may become the new SOC in DFU management. These include negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, bioengineered skin substitutes, growth factors, shockwave therapy, and several others. These novel therapies have shown significant DFU clinical improvement among subsets of DFU patients. However, much of the literature comes from smaller trials with inconsistent patient selection and outcomes measured, making it difficult to assess the true clinical benefit of these treatments. While novel therapies are promising for the interdisciplinary approach to DFU management, many still lack sufficient evidence, and their efficacy remains to be determined.

Indexed as

Diabetic FootHumansStandard of Care

Identifiers

PMID31848923
OpenAlexW2995249215

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.