SynthesisInternational wound journal2023
Effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement in subjects with diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement in subjects with diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Effect of Ultrasound-Supported Wound Debridement in Subjects with Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-02-11Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A meta-analysis study to assess the effect of ultrasound-supported wound debridement (USSD) in subjects with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). A comprehensive literature examination till January 2023 was implemented and 1873 linked studies were appraised. The picked studies contained 577 subjects with DFUs in the studies' baseline, 282 of them were using USSD, 204 were using standard care, and 91 were using a placebo. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the consequence of USSD in subjects with DFUs by the dichotomous styles and a fixed or random effect model. The USSD applied to DFU caused a significantly higher wound healing rate compared with the standard care (OR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.94-4.88, P < .001) with no heterogeneity (I
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.