SynthesisActa diabetologica2025
Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma versus conventional care in diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Acta diabetologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Topical therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Nutritional Interventions to Optimize Orthobiologic Therapy Quality in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Framework: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Platelet-Rich Plasma for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Appraisal of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) through topical application and local injection methods compared to conventional care in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU).
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to November 2024. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of PRP versus conventional care in DFU patients were included. Pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsFifteen randomized controlled trials (1,010 patients) were included. The PRP group showed significantly improved complete healing rates compared to conventional care (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.39-1.58, P < 0.001), with comparable effectiveness between topical application and local injection methods (P = 0.57). Notably, PRP demonstrated a shorter healing time compared to conventional care (WMD: -19.48 days, 95% CI: -27.91 to -11.05, P < 0.001). The PRP group exhibited lower wound infection rates and amputation rates (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.75, P < 0.001; RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79, P = 0.005). The PRP group did not lead to a higher incidence of treatment-related adverse events compared to conventional care (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.05 to 12.30, P = 0.87).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis confirms that PRP application, both topically and via local injection, improves the complete healing rate, reduces healing time, infection rates, and amputations, without increasing adverse events. These findings support the integration of PRP into clinical practice for the management of diabetic foot ulcers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40600985What 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.