SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023
Comparison of healing effectiveness of different debridement approaches for diabetic foot ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on ulcer healing in patients with diabetic foot: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- What's New in Wound Healing: Treatment Advances and Microbial Insights.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- Biofilm Dispersal and Wound Infection Clearance With Preclinical Debridement Agents.International wound journal · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review on diabetic foot ulcer addressing vascular insufficiency, impaired immune response, and delayed wound healing mechanisms.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Practical guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease in China.Burns & trauma · 2025Article
- Local Management for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Annals of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The choice of the debridement method is very important for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), but the relative effectiveness of different debridement methods in the healing of DFUs remains unclear. This study conducted a network meta-analysis of the relative healing effectiveness of different debridement methods in patients with DFUs. Methods: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception up to 30 June 2023 for screening randomized controlled trials on the healing effectiveness of debridement in DFUs. Outcome measures included ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate. The Cochrane Risk Bias Tool, version 2.0, was used to assess the risk of bias in the included trials. R software was used for performing statistical analysis and GraphPad Prism was used for image plotting. Results: A total of 19 randomized controlled trials were included, and 900 patients with DFUs were assessed in this analysis. The proteolytic fraction from the latex of Conclusion: Enzymatic debridement was superior to other debridement methods in terms of ulcer healing rate and ulcer area reduction rate in patients with DFUs. However, as the quality of the included trials is low, enzymatic debridement can be used as a candidate debridement method in addition to sharp-based debridement in clinical practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441715.
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.