Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36873870›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Chelating the valley of death: Deferoxamine's path from bench to wound clinic.

Jennifer B Parker, Michelle F Griffin, Mauricio A Downer, Deena Akras, Charlotte E Berry, Asha C Cotterell, Geoffrey C Gurtner, Michael T Longaker, Derrick C Wan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Aromatic amino acid metabolism shapes autophagy-mediated adaptation to iron deprivation in glioblastoma cells.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer B ParkerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Michelle F GriffinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Mauricio A DownerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Deena AkrasDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Charlotte E BerryDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Asha C CotterellDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Geoffrey C GurtnerDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Michael T LongakerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Derrick C WanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Stanford University · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is undisputable benefit in translating basic science research concretely into clinical practice, and yet, the vast majority of therapies and treatments fail to achieve approval. The rift between basic research and approved treatment continues to grow, and in cases where a drug is granted approval, the average time from initiation of human trials to regulatory marketing authorization spans almost a decade. Albeit with these hurdles, recent research with deferoxamine (DFO) bodes significant promise as a potential treatment for chronic, radiation-induced soft tissue injury. DFO was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1968 for the treatment of iron overload. However, investigators more recently have posited that its angiogenic and antioxidant properties could be beneficial in treating the hypovascular and reactive-oxygen species-rich tissues seen in chronic wounds and radiation-induced fibrosis (RIF). Small animal experiments of various chronic wound and RIF models confirmed that treatment with DFO improved blood flow and collagen ultrastructure. With a well-established safety profile, and now a strong foundation of basic scientific research that supports its potential use in chronic wounds and RIF, we believe that the next steps required for DFO to achieve FDA marketing approval will include large animal studies and, if those prove successful, human clinical trials. Though these milestones remain, the extensive research thus far leaves hope for DFO to bridge the gap between bench and wound clinic in the near future.

Indexed as

deferoxamineiron chelationirradiationreactive oxygen speciesskin radiationwound healing

Identifiers

PMID36873870
PMCPMC9975168
OpenAlexW4320921943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.