ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparison and evaluation of negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Modulates Wound pH and Bacterial Invasion inPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Advances in diabetic wound healing: from pathophysiology to emerging therapies.Acta diabetologica · 2026Review
- Predictors of Reamputation in Patients With Advanced-Stage Thromboangiitis Obliterans Ulcers: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Exosome-Biomaterial Platforms for Diabetic Skin Infections: Microenvironment Remodeling, Responsive Delivery, and Clinical Translation.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Complicated Wounds of the Foot and Lower Limb in Diabetic Patients: A Retrospective Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Promoting Re-Epithelialization in Diabetic Foot Wounds Using Integrative Therapeutic Approaches.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the efficacy, safety, and cost implications of NPWT versus standard wound care (SWC) for Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFUs).
methods91 patients with DFUs were included in this retrospective study from May 2017 and February 2024. All patients were divided into NPWT (n = 44) and SWC (n = 47) groups based on the surgery methods. Arterial disease severity was assessed via ankle-brachial index (ABI) and Doppler ultrasound, with subgroups categorized as severe ischemia (ABI < 0.4), moderate ischemia (ABI 0.4-0.7), and normal/mild ischemia (ABI > 0.7). Baseline characteristics, wound parameters, healing progression, adverse events, costs, and subgroup outcomes by arterial disease status were compared between two groups.
resultsAt the 4-week assessment, the NPWT group exhibited significantly higher mean percentage reduction in wound area (35.01% vs. 32.53%, P = 0.033) and greater reduction in wound depth (2.74 mm vs. 2.14 mm, P = 0.032) compared to the SWC group. A notably higher proportion of NPWT patients achieved complete wound closure (52.27% vs. 27.66%, P = 0.029), resolution of infection (88.64% vs. 68.09%, P = 0.035), and neuropathy improvement (59.09% vs. 34.04%, P = 0.029). NPWT also showed lower wound infection rates (9.09% vs. 29.79%, P = 0.027) but higher skin irritation (31.82% vs. 10.64%, P = 0.026). Subgroup analysis revealed NPWT's superiority in both PAD-positive (48.0% vs. 20.0%, RR = 2.40, 95% CI: 1.12-5.15, P = 0.042) and PAD-negative subgroups (55.2% vs. 30.4%, RR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.05-3.15, P = 0.031). Even in severe ischemia (ABI < 0.4), NPWT achieved higher closure rates (36.4% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.038). While total treatment costs were comparable (P = 0.084), NPWT reduced hospitalization days (16.05 vs. 21.38 days, P = 0.028) and drug costs (5229.33 RMB vs. 5915.5 RMB, P = 0.030).
conclusionNPWT is more superior in safety, cost-efficiency, and long-term wound management compared to SWC.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.