ArticleBMC nursing2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological nursing interventions for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-pharmacological nursing interventions are increasingly employed to enhance diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) healing and patient outcomes. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety profiles of various adjunctive nursing strategies remain unclear. This network meta-analysis systematically evaluated and ranked non-pharmacological nursing interventions for DFU management.
methodsA comprehensive systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception to March 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-pharmacological adjunctive nursing interventions (e.g., hyperbaric oxygen therapy [HBOT], light therapy [LT], ultrasound therapy [US], extracorporeal shock-wave therapy [ESWT], exercise therapy [EXER], continuous diffusion of oxygen [CDO], negative pressure wound therapy [NPWT]) with standard care or alternative interventions for DFU were included. Primary outcomes assessed were healing rate, healing time, wound area reduction, recurrence rate, amputation rate, and adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models, with results expressed as odds ratios (OR), standardized mean differences (SMD), and surface under cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA).
resultsSixty-seven RCTs involving 5957 patients were included. LT significantly increased healing rates compared with standard care (OR = 7.62; 95% CI, 2.92-19.90; SUCRA = 88.8%). US produced the largest wound area reduction (SMD = -3.17; 95% CI, -4.81 to -1.53; SUCRA = 98.4%). ESWT was superior in shortening healing time (SMD = -2.02; 95% CI, -3.33 to -0.71; SUCRA = 94.4%) and reducing amputation risk (OR = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.70). EXER significantly reduced recurrence rates (OR = 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.33; SUCRA = 97.4%). CDO demonstrated the fewest adverse events (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.85; SUCRA = 89.2%).
conclusionThis analysis provides targeted evidence for selecting adjunctive nursing interventions based on specific clinical goals. LT and US are optimal for enhancing wound closure and reducing wound area, ESWT is most effective for rapid healing and limb preservation, EXER excels at recurrence prevention, and CDO offers superior safety. These findings facilitate tailored nurse-led care plans and inform clinical guidelines.
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.