ReviewJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2025
A review of advancements in antiseptics for wound care in diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
Review in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Wounds affect many people and require a considerable annual cost to manage. Wound infections significantly delay the healing process, particularly in individuals with diabetes mellitus, due to impaired immunity and microvascular complications. The use of antiseptics is considered a way to reduce this problem. The study aims to assess the different antiseptic categories frequently employed in wound management, focusing on identifying and understanding their unique features. A comprehensive review of PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases identified key antiseptics, including isopropyl alcohol, chlorhexidine, polyhexanide, octenidine, povidone-iodine, hypochlorous acid, silver-based products, hydrogen peroxide, triclosan, and benzalkonium chloride. These antiseptics exhibit varying efficacies and cytotoxicity profiles, necessitating tailored usage to optimize healing while preventing antimicrobial resistance. The primary indication for antiseptics is the prevention of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs), as recommended by guidelines. For diabetic foot ulcers, the strongest evidence supports the use of hypochlorous acid. There are no universal recommendations for antiseptic use; their application depends on specific circumstances. This review highlights the need for evidence-based, condition-specific antiseptic strategies to address unique patient needs effectively. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-025-01607-7.
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.