Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39872922›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Comparing the Efficacy of a Unique Advanced Bioengineered Type-I Collagen-Based Skin Substitute Versus an Amnion Graft With Standard of Care in the Treatment of Non-healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

David G Armstrong, Jason Hanft, Maria Surprenant, Adam Isaac, Marissa Carter, Charles Zelen, Subramanian Gunasekaran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

David G ArmstrongSurgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Jason HanftPodiatry, Doctors Research Network, Miami, USA.
Maria SurprenantPodiatry, Doctors Research Network, Miami, USA.
Adam IsaacPodiatry, Foot and Ankle Specialists of the Mid-Atlantic (FASMA), Frederick, USA.
Marissa CarterStatistics, Strategic Solutions, Bozeman, USA.
Charles ZelenClinical Studies, Professional Education and Research Institute, Roanoke, USA.
Subramanian GunasekaranResearch and Development, Encoll Corporation, Fremont, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increased cost and morbidity associated with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) place a substantial strain on the entire global healthcare system. In this trial, 24 subjects with a chronic DFU, Wagner grade 1 (University of Texas grade 1A), were treated with Standard of Care (SOC) therapy and randomized, one-half to receive advanced high-purity Type-I collagen-based skin substitute (HPTC; manufactured by Encoll Corp., Fremont, CA, USA), and the other half to receive a dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (dHACM) or viable cryopreserved human placental membrane (vCHPM). The primary study endpoint was percentage wound area reduction (PAR) over the five-week treatment period. Secondary endpoints included healing time, proportion of wounds closed, and mean number of graft applications. By four weeks post-randomization, the mean PAR for the HPTC group was 83.9 versus 71.3 for dHACM or vCHPM. By four weeks, 6/12 (50%) of wounds receiving HPTC healed, compared to 3/12 (25%) in the comparator group (dHACM or vCHPM). There were no adverse events reported in either group. The results of this study suggest that HPTC shows great promise in wound healing in people with DFUs, with the given limitations. We look forward to future studies that will confirm these encouraging results.

Indexed as

amniondiabetic foot ulcergraftplacentaskin substitutetype-1 collagenwound healing

Identifiers

PMID39872922
PMCPMC11769781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.