SynthesisJournal of diabetes research2025
Efficacy and Safety of Biomaterials and Antimicrobial Dressings in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and network meta-analysis is aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of various wound dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, as differences in outcomes among these materials remain unclear. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major Chinese and international databases up to October 2024, identifying 35 randomized controlled trials involving 2631 patients. Data were extracted and quality-assessed using standardized methods, and a network meta-analysis was performed using appropriate statistical software. The results showed that, compared with traditional dressings, novel biomaterials (e.g., growth factors, amniotic membrane, platelet-rich plasma, and hydrogels) and antimicrobial dressings (e.g., silver ion dressings) combined with basic fibroblast growth factor or hydrogel significantly shortened wound healing time. In terms of healing efficiency, combinations involving epidermal growth factor, amniotic membrane, or platelet-rich plasma with hydrogel were significantly more effective than traditional dressings. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve values indicated that the most effective interventions were antimicrobial dressings (silver ion) combined with basic fibroblast growth factor for wound healing time and epidermal growth factor-based regimens for healing efficiency. Importantly, sensitivity analyses excluding studies at high risk of bias (allocation/blinding) demonstrated that the ranking for ulcer healing time was unstable-attenuated for platelet-rich plasma but more favorable for honey dressings-whereas estimates for healing efficiency remained robust. These findings suggest that conclusions regarding healing time are particularly sensitive to study quality and should be interpreted with caution. No serious adverse events were reported, and most interventions were well tolerated. These findings suggest that biomaterial and antimicrobial dressings, particularly when used in combination with traditional methods, offer clear advantages in the management of diabetic foot ulcers and should be prioritized in clinical practice.
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.