ArticleCureus2024
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Combined With Standard Wound Care Versus Standard Wound Care Alone in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Gas Therapies for Chronic Wounds: Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Evidence Certainty-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Management of severe diabetic foot using modified transverse bone transport: A retrospective study of Wagner grade 3 to 4 cases.Medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are significant risk factors for amputations. Though the available literature suggests that adjuvant hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) fastens the healing process and reduces the risk of amputations, its overall evidence in the reduction of amputation remains controversial. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant HBOT and standard wound care (SWC) with SWC alone in patients with DFUs. Methods This prospective, randomized, controlled study involved 60 adult patients with DFU. Based on the simple random number table, the patients were equally randomized into two group: adjuvant HBOT and SWC (n=30) with SWC alone (n=30). The patients received 24 sessions (six sessions per week) of HBOT (3.0 absolute atmospheric pressure) for 45 minutes daily over a period of four consecutive weeks. The outcome measures included wound size reduction, wound bed condition, complications, and proportion of patients undergoing amputation. The patients were assessed at four-week follow-up. Results At four weeks, both the groups had a significant reduction in pain score, wound size, and inflammation of the surrounding skin compared to baseline (all p<0.001). At the end of the study, the adjuvant HBOT and SWC group had significantly reduced pain score and wound size as well as a greater proportion of healthy granulation tissue in the wound bed relative to the SWC group (all p=0.001). Moreover, adjuvant HBOT and SWC led to a significantly reduced incidence of minor amputation (p=0.001), while complications were comparable between the groups (p=0.198). Conclusion Adjuvant HBOT and SWC are more effective than SWC in healing the DFUs and reduction of minor amputations.
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.