Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38606794›Full record

Trial reportInternational wound journal2024

A purified reconstituted bilayer matrix shows improved outcomes in treatment of non-healing diabetic foot ulcers when compared to the standard of care: Final results and analysis of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-centre clinical trial.

David G Armstrong, Dennis P Orgill, Robert D Galiano, Paul M Glat, Jarrod P Kaufman, Marissa J Carter, Lawrence A DiDomenico, Charles M Zelen

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

8 authors.

David G ArmstrongDivision of Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1887-9175
Dennis P OrgillDivision of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8279-7310
Robert D GalianoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9552-6483
Paul M GlatSurgery and Pediatrics, Drexel University College of Medicine, St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-8603
Jarrod P KaufmanDepartment of Surgery, Temple University School of Medicine and McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7967-8612
Marissa J CarterStrategic Solutions, Inc., Bozeman, Montana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2265-6639
Lawrence A DiDomenicoLower Extremity Institute for Research and Therapy, Youngstown, Ohio, USA.
Charles M ZelenProfessional Education and Research Institute, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5682-7056

Funding

Geistlich Pharma 003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) increases, better treatments that improve healing should reduce complications of these ulcers including infections and amputations. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes between a novel purified reconstituted bilayer membrane (PRBM) to the standard of care (SOC) in the treatment of non-healing DFUs. This study included 105 patients who were randomized to either of two treatment groups (n = 54 PRBM; n = 51 SOC) in the intent to treat (ITT) group and 80 who completed the study per protocol (PP) (n = 47 PRBM; n = 33 SOC). The primary endpoint was the percentage of wounds closed after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included percent area reduction, time to healing, quality of life, and cost to closure. The DFUs that had been treated with PRBM healed at a higher rate than those treated with SOC (ITT: 83% vs. 45%, p = 0.00004, PP: 92% vs. 67%, p = 0.005). Wounds treated with PRBM also healed significantly faster than those treated with SOC with a mean of 42 versus 62 days for SOC (p = 0.00074) and achieved a mean wound area reduction within 12 weeks of 94% versus 51% for SOC (p = 0.0023). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events that were related to either the PRBM or the SOC. In comparison to the SOC, DFUs healed faster when treated with PRBM. Thus, the use of this PRBM is an effective option for the treatment of chronic DFUs.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeStandard of CareTreatment OutcomeWound Healingadvanced wound careadvanced wound matrixdiabetic foot ulcersstandard of carewound healing

Identifiers

PMID38606794
PMCPMC11010253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.