SynthesisDiabetes & vascular disease research
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of systemic antibiotics for diabetes-related foot infections.
Synthesis in Diabetes & vascular disease research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cost and Resource Utilisation for Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease in Australia: An Economic Evaluation.International wound journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDiabetes-related foot infections (DFIs) are prevalent in patients with diabetes mellitus, often leading to severe complications, including amputations. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of systemic antibiotics in DFI treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane databases, and Embase for randomized controlled trials up to August 4, 2024, evaluating the clinical efficacy of systemic antibiotics for DFIs. Primary outcomes were clinical efficacy and safety, comparing different antibiotic classes to penicillins. Subgroup analysis was based on DFI severity.
resultsOf 24 studies, 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Linezolid showed a potential efficacy advantage over penicillins for DFIs but had more adverse effects. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable across carbapenems and quinolones versus penicillins. Ertapenem showed no significant difference from piperacillin/tazobactam in treating moderate or severe DFIs.
conclusionIn conclusion, while linezolid may offer a potential efficacy advantage over penicillins in treating DFIs, it is associated with a higher risk of drug-related adverse effects. Penicillins demonstrate comparable clinical efficacy and safety to carbapenems and fluoroquinolones for DFI management. For moderate to severe DFIs, piperacillin/tazobactam and ertapenem are viable options, though treatment should be guided by local antimicrobial resistance patterns.
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.