ReviewRegenerative therapy2024
Wound fluid sampling methods and analysis of cytokine mRNA expression in ulcers from patients with diabetes mellitus.
Review in Regenerative therapy, 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.
- Advances and Challenges in Wearable Sensors for Health Monitoring.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Review
- Article
- Nanocarrier-Mediated Delivery Systems of Phytochemicals to Enhance and Accelerate Diabetic Wound Healing Processes.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Inflammation, diabetic foot and related treatments.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of diabetic foot ulcers is a common and severe complication of diabetes that can significantly affect quality of life. The physiological healing cascade does not progress tissue repair in diabetic foot ulcerations in a timely manner. Serum markers from foot ulcers have been used to characterize the healing process of the diabetic foot using various collection techniques. This study aimed to compare the use of cervical brushes and the Levine technique to collect wound fluid from foot ulcers of people with diabetes in order to determine the presence of cytokines. The collected material was used for gene expression analysis of macrophage/monocyte-associated cytokines IL1-β, IL-6, TNF-α, regulatory cytokine IL-10 and growth factor TGFβ, via quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Both collection methods produced sufficient amounts of RNA, but significantly more RNA was collected using a cervical brush (brush 224.82 ng/μL vs. Levine 80.90 ng/μL p = 0.0001). Significantly higher levels of expression of the following cytokine genes were detected in samples collected using a cervical brush: IL1-β (p = 0.0001), IL-6 (p = 0.0106), IL-10 (p = 0.0277) and TGFβ (p = 0.0002). Understanding why some wounds are difficult to heal is important for developing more effective treatments, and biomarkers may be useful for predicting the healing trajectory. These results demonstrate that it is possible to collect material from the wound bed for RT-qPCR analysis, and the cervical brush proved to be a simple and rapid method for monitoring cytokine gene expression.
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.