Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31890688›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2019

The effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy as a novel management of diabetic foot ulcers: an overview of systematic reviews.

Shahrzad Mohseni, Maryam Aalaa, Rasha Atlasi, Mohamad Reza Mohajeri Tehrani, Mahnaz Sanjari, Mohamad Reza Amini

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shahrzad Mohseni1Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam Aalaa2Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Rasha Atlasi1Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohamad Reza Mohajeri Tehrani1Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahnaz Sanjari3Diabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-2992-6184
Mohamad Reza Amini3Diabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5550-6792
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IRShariati Hospital · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one the serious disabling conditions in patients with diabetes. Several approaches are available to manage DFU including Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). The objective of this overview is systematically reviewing the related reviews about the effectiveness, safety, and cost benefits of NPWT interventions.

methodsIn October 2018, electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopous, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Google scholar were searched for systematic reviews about the NPWT's effectiveness and safety in DFUs. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist was used for the appraisal of the systematic reviews. According to this checklist the studies were categorized as high, moderate, low and critically low quality.

resultsThe electronic searches yielded 6889 studies. After excluding duplicates and those not fellfield the inclusion criteria, 23 systematic reviews were considered. The sample size of the reviews ranged between 20 and 2800 patients published since 2004 to 2018. Twenty systematic reviews (86.95%) included only randomized clinical trials (RCT). Regarding the AMSTAR-2 checklist, 7 studies were assigned to high quality, 8 were categorized as low quality and 8 studies belonged to the critically low quality groups. Accordingly, three, two and one out of seven high quality studies approved the effectiveness, safety and cost benefit of the NPWT therapy, respectively. However, some of them declared that there is some flaws in RCTs designing.

conclusionThis overview illustrated that either systematic reviews or the included RCTs had wide variety of quality and heterogeneity in order to provide high level of evidence. Hence, well-designed RCTs as well as meta-analysis are required to shade the light on different aspects of NPWT.

Indexed as

Diabetic foot ulcerNegative pressure wound therapySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31890688
PMCPMC6915190
OpenAlexW2990281184

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.