Trial reportInternational wound journal2024
Wound healing rates in COPD patients undergoing traditional pulmonary rehabilitation versus tailored Wound-Centric interventions.
Trial report 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wound healing rates in COPD patients undergoing traditional pulmonary rehabilitation versus tailored Wound-Centric interventions.International wound journal · 2024Trial
- RETRACTION: Wound Healing Rates in COPD Patients Undergoing Traditional Pulmonary Rehabilitation Versus Tailored Wound-Centric Interventions.International wound journal · 2025Article
- The impact of semaglutide on wound healing in diabetes related foot ulcer patients: A TriNetX database study.Diabetes & vascular disease researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This comparative cross-sectional study, conducted at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tailored wound-centric interventions (TWCI) versus traditional pulmonary rehabilitation (TPR) in enhancing wound healing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Enrolling 340 patients with confirmed COPD, the study randomly assigned participants to either the TWCI or TPR group for a 12-week programme. The primary outcome measured was the rate of wound healing, with secondary outcomes including changes in pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and quality of life (QoL) scores. The TWCI group received a customized programme integrating standard pulmonary rehabilitation with specific wound care strategies, such as enhanced oxygen therapy, nutritional supplementation, and infection control measures. In contrast, the TPR group underwent a conventional pulmonary rehabilitation programme without targeted wound care interventions. Wound healing rates, PFTs, and QoL scores were assessed at the end of the intervention and 3 months post-intervention. The TWCI group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in wound healing rates compared with the TPR group. The TWCI group had a 15% higher rate of reduction in wound size, a 10% rise in complete healing rates, and a 20% drop in infection rates (p < 0.05). Specifically, TWCI group exhibited higher rates of wound size reduction, complete healing, and decreased infection rates. Additionally, long-term pulmonary function and overall quality of life improvements were more pronounced in the tailored group, underscoring the benefits of a personalized approach to managing COPD and wound care. The study concluded that integrating wound-specific care strategies with pulmonary rehabilitation significantly enhances health outcomes in COPD patients with wounds. These findings supported the adoption of customized, multidisciplinary care plans, suggesting that tailored interventions can offer a comprehensive solution to the complex needs of COPD patients, potentially redefining best practices in chronic disease management.
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.