ReviewInternational wound journal2024
Quality of evidence supporting the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot ulcers.
Review in International wound journal, 2024. 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- RETRACTION: Quality of Evidence Supporting the Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: New Pathogenetic Mechanisms, Treatment and the Most Important Complications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Quality of evidence supporting the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot ulcers.International wound journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) was to methodically gather, evaluate and summarize the data supporting the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) to treat diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were all searched thoroughly to identify SRs/MAs that qualified. AMSTAR-2 tool, PRISMA checklists and GRADE system were applied by two reviewers independently to assess the methodological quality, reporting and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs, respectively. Eleven SRs/MAs were enrolled in this overview. According to AMSTAR-2, a very low methodological quality assessment was given to the included SRs/MAs due to the limitations of items 2, 4 and 7. For the PRISMA, the overall quality of reporting is not satisfactory due to missing reporting on protocol, search, as well as additional analysis. The majority of outcomes had low- to moderate-quality evidence, and no high-quality evidence was found to support the role of HBOT for DFUs, according to GRADE. To conclude, the potential of HBOT in treating DFUs is supported by evidence of low to moderate quality. More rigorously designed, high-level studies are needed in the future to determine the evidence for HBOT for DFU, including the timing, frequency and duration of HBOT interventions.
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.