ArticleAnnals of surgery2024
Local Management for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Topical therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the efficacy of various local management strategies for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).
backgroundSeveral surgical and non-surgical local interventional approaches are available for the treatment of DFUs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatments is unknown, and it remains unclear which approach is the optimal choice for DFUs treatment due to limited direct comparisons.
methodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to select the optimal approach to DFUs local management. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We analysed data by pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model. A network meta-analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of different interventional approaches in the early (within 12 wk) and late stages (over 12 wk).
results141 RCTs involving 14076 patients and exploring 14 interventional strategies were eligible for inclusion. Most studies (102/141) had at least one risk-of-bias dimension. Good consistency was observed during the analysis. Local pairwise comparisons demonstrated obvious differences in the early-stage healing rate and early- and late-stage healing times, while no significant difference in the late-stage healing rate or adverse events were noted. SUCRAs identified the standard of care (SOC) + decellularized dressing (DD), off-loading (OL), and autogenous graft (AG) as the three most effective interventions within 12 weeks for both healing rate (97%, mean rank: 1.4; 90%, mean rank: 2.3; 80.8%, mean rank: 3.5, respectively) and healing time (96.7%, mean rank: 1.4; 83.0%, mean rank: 3.0; 76.8%, mean rank: 3.8, respectively). After 12 weeks, local drug therapy (LDT) (89.5%, mean rank: 2.4) and OL (82.4%, mean rank: 3.3) ranked the highest for healing rate, and OL (100.0%, mean rank: 1.0) for healing time. With respect to adverse events, moderate and high risks were detected in the SOC + DD (53.7%, mean rank: 7.0) and OL (24.4%, mean rank: 10.8) groups, respectively.
conclusionThe findings suggest that OL provided considerable benefits for DFU healing in both the early and late stages, but the high risk of adverse events warrants caution. SOC+DD may be the preferred option in the early stages, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.
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.