ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Topical Phenytoin in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phenytoin has been used as an anti-seizure medication since 1939. There has been interest in its healing properties, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating and recommending its use in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) disease. Despite this, the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) does not support its use. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the use of phenytoin in the treatment of DFU disease compared to a control. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted on January 5, 2024, using the keywords "phenytoin", "diabetes", "ulcer", and "RCT". Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A total of 23 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 20 recommended the use of phenytoin. However, the quality of the studies was poor. Of the included studies, 17 failed to implement blinding, 10 did not describe the randomization process, and only one completed a sample size calculation. There was a wide variation in both the study duration and the outcomes chosen to report the change in ulcer size. For this reason, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The current evidence does not support the use of phenytoin in DFU disease; further studies with larger patient numbers and reduced risk of bias are needed.
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.