SynthesisBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2022
Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications - a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Synthesis in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement in subjects with diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications - a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2022Pooled it
- Hyaluronic acid-based tissue-engineered biomaterials for infected diabetic foot ulcers: mechanisms, evidence, and translational challenges.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Predictors of Major Amputation and Mortality in Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Retrospective Nationwide Inpatient Sample Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Phage and enzyme therapies in wound infections: From lab to bedside.Chinese medical journal · 2025Review
- The emerging role of probiotics in the management and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a comprehensive review.AIMS microbiology · 2025Review
- The safety and efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water solution for wound irrigation: post-market clinical follow-up study.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- The Use of Medical Grade Honey on Infected Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers-A Prospective Case-Control Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%-34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted. Objectives: Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes? Study eligibility criteria: All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control. Data sources: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Participants and interventions: Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control. Main Outcomes: Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost. Study selection and analysis: Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis. Results: 10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes. Limitations: The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence. Discussion/Conclusion: Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU. Implications: Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.
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.