Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37008902›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023

Antibiotic-laden bone cement for diabetic foot infected wounds: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tingting Dong, Qi Huang, Zengmei Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. [Research on the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer wounds].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Identification and treatment ofFrontiers in medicine · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Tingting DongDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Hospital of Chengdu Office of People's Government of Tibetan Autonomous Region (Hospital.C.T.), Chengdu, China.
Qi HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hospital of Chengdu Office of People's Government of Tibetan Autonomous Region (Hospital.C.T.), Chengdu, China.
Zengmei SunDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Hospital of Chengdu Office of People's Government of Tibetan Autonomous Region (Hospital.C.T.), Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: A large body of literature has demonstrated the significant efficacy of antibiotic bone cement in treating infected diabetic foot wounds, but there is less corresponding evidence-based medical evidence. Therefore, this article provides a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antibiotic bone cement in treating infected diabetic foot wounds to provide a reference basis for clinical treatment. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scoup, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), Wanfang database, and the ClinicalTrials.gov were searched, and the search time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022, and two investigators independently. Two investigators independently screened eligible studies, evaluated the quality of the literature using the Cochrane Evaluation Manual, and performed statistical analysis of the data using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of nine randomized controlled studies (n=532) were included and, compared with the control group, antibiotic bone cement treatment reduced the time to wound healing (MD=-7.30 95% CI [-10.38, -4.23]), length of hospital stay (MD=-6.32, 95% CI [-10.15, -2.48]), time to bacterial conversion of the wound (MD=-5.15, 95% CI [-7.15,-2.19]), and the number of procedures (MD=-2.35, 95% CI [-3.68, -1.02]). Conclusion: Antibiotic bone cement has significant advantages over traditional treatment of diabetic foot wound infection and is worthy of clinical promotion and application. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO identifier, CDR 362293.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBone CementsDiabetic FootWound InfectionDiabetes MellitusHumansWound HealingAnti-Bacterial AgentsBone CementsAntibioticsbone cementclinical efficacydiabetic footinfectionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID37008902
PMCPMC10060955

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.