ReviewCureus2025
Clinical Outcomes of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Adjuvant hyperbaric oxygen therapy reduces the duration of sporotrichosis treatment.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Cell migration in diabetic wound healing: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Identification of Neutrophil Extracellular Trap-Related Biomarkers in Diabetic Foot Ulcers Based on Bioinformatics.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
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
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are severe complications of diabetes mellitus that often lead to nontraumatic limb amputation. This systematic review aimed to assess the primary clinical evidence supporting hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the management of DFUs. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from June to August 2024, and six studies with a total of 391 patients were included in the final analysis, after applying relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of the studies indicated reduced major amputation rates, improved ulcer healing rates, and decreased ulcer size and depth with HBOT compared to standard care (SC). To assess the risk of bias, this review used the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for observational studies. This evaluation uncovered variations in methodological rigor across the included studies in the review. Most studies indicate that HBOT leads to lower rates of major amputations, better ulcer healing, and reduced ulcer dimensions than SC. However, one study found no significant differences in amputation rates or long-term wound healing between groups. Selection bias from inconsistent patient allocation is a common limitation in observational studies, potentially distorting comparisons. Performance bias, particularly insufficient blinding, could have influenced treatment adherence and wound care practices, thereby affecting outcome evaluations. These biases, coupled with differences in SC practices, make it challenging to interpret the true efficacy of HBOT and restrict its clinical applicability. While most studies showed a low risk of bias in certain areas, moderate-to-high bias in key aspects necessitated careful interpretation. Future high-quality RCTs with stringent blinding, standardized protocols, and defined patient selection criteria are crucial to confirm the effectiveness of HBOT, improve guidelines, and establish its long-term viability. Although this review suggests that HBOT may be valuable for DFUs, additional rigorous research is needed to reduce bias, enhance methodological consistency, and improve the reliability of the findings for clinical implementation.
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.