ReviewInternational journal of burns and trauma2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment modalities and their impact on the healing progression of diabetic foot ulcers.
Review in International journal of burns and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifunctional Polyphenol-Polymer Nanocomposite Hydrogel Targeting Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and Infection in Diabetic Wounds.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Adjunctive Acupressure on Postoperative Infection and Hospital Stay in Wagner Grade 2-3 Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Propensity Score-Stratified Cohort Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Investigation of the Efficacy and Mechanism of Monoacylglycerol Lipase Inhibitors in Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- SZC-6 Promotes Diabetic Wound Healing in Mice by Modulating the M1/M2 Macrophage Ratio and Inhibiting the MyD88/NF-χB Pathway.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a common and serious complication of diabetes mellitus, which occurs in 15-25% of diabetic patients at some point in their lives. However, most of the Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) do not heal with conventional methods of wound care and progress to become chronic, non-healing ulcers with high morbidity, mortality, and economic stakes. Some of the recent techniques in the management of ulcers include Systemic Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (s-HBOT), Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC) Therapy, and Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) that aim at improving the ulcer healing rate and minimize the risks of amputation.
objectiveThis work intends to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of the effectiveness, healing time and effect on amputation of these advanced treatment modalities on management of DFUs.
methodsThe present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Information was obtained from 10 researches that considered different types of DFU treatment. The major end-points studied were rates of ulcer healing, time to heal and frequency of lower extremity amputations. The meta-analysis was conducted using R statistical software and the synthesis of results was done using forest and funnel plots.
resultsThe pooled analysis showed that NPWT significantly improved ulcer healing rates (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.09-3.05) and reduced time to healing (Mean Diff = -22 days, 95% CI: -41.60 to -2.40). HBOT, particularly s-HBOT, demonstrated a substantial reduction in amputation rates (OR = 0.08, 95% CI: -0.11-0.28). PRP also showed promise, especially in reducing healing time (Mean Diff = -25 days, 95% CI: -34.80 to -15.20), though with more variability across studies.
conclusionThe results of NPWT were found to be significantly superior for ulcer closure and reduced healing time making it the treatment of choice for DFUs. Compared to controls, both HBOT and s-HBOT were strikingly effective in averting amputations. PRP had the possibility of being used as supplementary treatment especially in treatment with regard to the aspect of promotion of healing. Collectively, these results suggest that it is possible to use such advanced therapies to enhance the treatment of DFU; however, more effort is required to refine the protocols of such therapies and determine the sources of a differential response.
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.