ReviewJPRAS open2024
Reconstructive surgery for mycetoma: Preliminary algorithm and a systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mycetoma.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Review
- Microsurgical reconstruction after foot eumycetoma excision: Description of two cases.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Eumycetoma: pathogenesis, current treatments, and the search for new drugs.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Repurposing FDA-Approved Drugs for Eumycetoma Treatment: Homology Modeling and Computational Screening of CYP51 Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical treatments of mycetoma are a cornerstone in management. However, while doing a wide surgical excision of mycetoma lesion, surgeons think about how to close the skin defect, which can be closed primarily, left to heal by secondary intension, by skin grafts or local flaps. In this review, we demonstrate the various applications and changes of mycetoma reconstruction after surgical excision. Methods: This is a systematic literature search and review conducted to determine articles presenting mycetoma reconstruction options. Articles were identified, and the time of publication, type of study, time of study, and country of study were checked. Additionally, all patients in those articles were included. Patients' names, sex, clinical presentation, and management were identified. Results: A total number of 9 articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 8 of them are case reports, and 1 is a case series. The first mycetoma reconstruction case was published in 1959. The country of publication varies from tropical and non-tropical countries. The total number of patients found in those articles is 34 patients, most of whom are male. The causative organism is mainly eumycetoma. The site of mycetoma lesions is varied with variable sizes. The reconstruction options used were skin graft and local or regional flaps, where only 1 case underwent a free flap for reconstruction. Conclusion: Reconstruction of mycetoma should be considered following mycetoma surgery in small or large size defects if skin closure is not feasible and there is no indication for amputation.
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.