Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32343054›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2020

Efficacy and safety of recombinant human epidermal growth factor for diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Ding-Yun Zhao, Ya-Na Su, Yong-Hong Li, Tian-Qi Yu, Jing Li, Chong-Qi Tu

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ding-Yun ZhaoDepartment of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Ya-Na SuDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Yong-Hong LiDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Tian-Qi YuDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Jing LiDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Chong-Qi TuDepartment of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, PR China.
Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) in treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), we conducted both database searches (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) and reference searches for randomised controlled trials from the inception of databases to 30 January 2020. Two reviewers independently scrutinised the trials, extracted data, and assessed the quality of trials. The primary outcome was the proportion of complete healing. The secondary outcomes were mean time to complete healing and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed by different administration routes. Statistical analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3. The time to complete healing Kaplan-Meier curves was pooled in the R software. Of the 156 citations, 9 trials (720 participants) met eligibility criteria and were included. The rhEGF achieved a higher complete healing rate than placebo (OR: 2.79, [95% CI: 1.99, 3.99]). The rhEGF also significantly shorten complete healing time (MD: -14.10 days, [95% CI: -18.03, -10.16]). Subgroup analysis showed that topical application was superior to intralesional injection, but that may be because of different ulcer severity they included. No significant difference was shown in adverse events. Results were coherent with sensitivity analyses. Therefore, rhEGF is an effective and safe treatment for DFUs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiabetes MellitusDiabetic FootEpidermal Growth FactorFemaleHumansInjections, IntralesionalMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeWound HealingEpidermal Growth Factordiabetic foot ulcermeta-analysisrecombinant human epidermal growth factorsystematic reviewwound closure

Identifiers

PMID32343054
PMCPMC7948637
OpenAlexW3019640295

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.