SynthesisInternational wound journal2020
Human amniotic membrane allograft, a novel treatment for chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cellular, Acellular, and Matrix-Like Placental Products for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A 12-Week Randomised-Trial Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review on the rational use of amniotic membrane allografts in diabetic foot ulcer treatment.BMC surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Human amniotic membrane allograft, a novel treatment for chronic diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.International wound journal · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of the effect of a gel made with amniotic fluid formulation on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers: A triple-blind clinical trial.Frontiers in public health · 2022Trial
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrices for Skin Wound Treatment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Study on repair of periodontal bone defect in rats with PCL-PEG electrospun nanofibers combined with amniotic homogenate supernatant.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis for commonly used human cell and tissue products in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Recent advances in decellularized biomaterials for wound healing.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Amniotic growth factors enhanced human pre-adipocyte cell viability and differentiation under hypoxia.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2022Article
- Review
- Membranous Extracellular Matrix-Based Scaffolds for Skin Wound Healing.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Case Report: Freeze-Dried Human Amniotic Membrane Allograft for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: Results of a Multicentre Observational Study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Wound Center Without Walls: The New Model of Providing Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice · 2020Article
- Comparison between Cryopreserved and Dehydrated Human Amniotic Membrane Graft in Treating Challenging Cases with Macular Hole and Macular Hole Retinal Detachment.Journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of human amniotic membrane (HAM) allograft in treating chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), a comprehensive search of randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science was conducted to December 7, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of studies. The primary outcome was the proportion of complete healing. The secondary outcomes were mean time to complete healing and adverse events. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. We identified 257 articles, of which 7 articles (465 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of complete wound healing in HAM plus standard of care (SOC) group was 3.88 times as high as that in SOC alone (RR: 3.88 [95% CI: 2.34, 6.44]) at 6 weeks, and 2.01 times at 12 weeks (RR: 2.01 [95%CI: 1.45, 2.77]). The intervention group had a significantly shorter time to complete healing (MD: -30.33 days, [95% CI: -37.95, -22.72]). The number needed to treat within 6 weeks was 2.3 ([95% CI: 1.8, 3.1]). No significant difference was shown in adverse events. Results were consistent in a sensitivity analysis. Hence, HAM plus SOC is effective and safe in treating chronic DFUs.
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.