ArticleWorld journal of diabetes2025
Evaluating the effectiveness of ultrasound-assisted wound debridement in managing diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of diabetes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) present a significant clinical challenge due to their high prevalence and profound impact on morbidity. Ultrasound-assisted wound debridement (UAWD) has emerged as a potential therapeutic modality to improve healing outcomes in DFU management.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of UAWD in treating DFUs on wound closure rates, treatment duration, and quality of life outcomes.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines, systematically searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library with no date restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of UAWD in DFU treatment were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved through consensus or third-party consultation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
resultsFrom 1255 articles, seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The studies demonstrated that UAWD significantly reduced DFU healing time (standardized mean difference = -0.78, 95%CI: -0.97 to -0.60,
conclusionUAWD is a promising adjunctive treatment for DFUs, significantly reducing healing times and increasing healing rates. These findings advocate for the integration of UAWD into standard DFU care protocols.
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.