SynthesisInternational wound journal2024
Efficacy of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: Clinical evidence from meta-analyses.
Synthesis 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: Clinical evidence from meta-analyses.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Efficacy of Stem Cell Therapy for Diabetic Foot: Clinical Evidence From Meta-Analyses.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Investigational New Drug-enabling studies to use genetically modified mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with critical limb ischemia.Stem cells translational medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the clinical data on the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot (DF) based on recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). SRs/MAs that evaluate the clinical evidence on the efficacy of stem cell therapy for DF were identified through a systematic search in public databases. The methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed separately by two researchers. Eight SRs/MAs were included in this analysis. Since there were no registered protocol or exclusion criteria for the included SRs/MAs, the methodological quality was rated as critically low. There was no high-quality evidence available for the outcomes, and the evidence quality ranged from critically low to moderate. Evidence degradation was most commonly caused by the risk of bias, followed by imprecision, publication bias and inconsistency. In conclusion, stem cell therapy may be effective for DF. However, this conclusion should be approached with caution, considering the quality of the supporting SRs/MAs.
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.