ArticleHealth science reports2025
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial Evaluating a Lyopreserved Amniotic Membrane in the Treatment of Venous Leg Ulcers.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- Black Sea-Derived Biomaterials for Wound-Healing Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Chinese expert consensus on wound repair of venous leg ulcers (2025 edition).Military Medical Research · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Standard of Care (SoC) with multilayer compression therapy along with proper wound management, may not be sufficient to close all venous ulcers and needs advanced therapies. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trial, 351 patients were screened, 200 were eligible and enrolled and were randomized 1:1 to LPM (lyopreserved cellular placental membrane) plus SoC or SoC alone for up to 12 weeks. Patients were enrolled between June 2018 and November 2020 at 30 sites across the United States. Outcome measures included complete closure of the index ulcer (primary), reduction in wound size, rate of closure, quality of life, and adverse events. Results: ITT analysis revealed that wounds treated with weekly applications of LPM as an adjunct to standard of care, reduced in size significantly more than SoC alone, at the end of 4, 8, and 12 graft applications, indicating a faster progression to closure. There was a statistically 1.72 higher relative risk or 72% higher probability of wound closure with LPM compared to the SoC group during the study period for wounds with an initial size of 3-25 cm Conclusion: LPM and standard of care, significantly closed more venous leg ulcers and faster than standard of care alone and improved the quality of life for patients, suggesting that the use of aseptically processed LPM is a safe and effective treatment option in the healing of chronic venous leg ulcers.
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.