ReviewCureus2025
Unlocking the Potential of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Continuously Diffused Oxygen Therapy Compared with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus (DM), which affects millions globally, is rising exponentially. Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a major health and economic concern in patients with uncontrolled DM. Complex factors such as neuropathy, ischemia, and susceptibility to infection contribute to the development of DFUs, which can lead to amputations and significant mortality. Traditional DFU therapies often struggle to address the diversity and complexity of ulcers. Current guidelines for DFU care recommend Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) as a potential treatment option. NPWT applies controlled negative pressure to optimize wound healing. Despite its promise, limited evidence, varying methodologies, and restricted data accessibility necessitate a comprehensive evaluation. Our study adhered to PRISMA standards and conducted an extensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2008. The search included targeted keywords related to diabetic foot complications and NPWT to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this approach compared with conventional wound treatments. In the meta-analysis comprising 11 studies and a total of 1,135 participants, significant outcomes favored NPWT for DFUs. NPWT demonstrated a substantial impact on complete wound closure, with an OR of 2.193 (95% CI: 1.562-3.079; p < 0.0001). Ulcer healing also showed a statistically significant improvement, with an OR of 2.771 (95% CI: 1.511-5.082; p = 0.0010). Granulation tissue development improved markedly, as indicated by a standardized mean difference of -1.3384 (95% CI: -1.5577 to -1.1192; p < 0.0001). NPWT notably reduced amputation rates by 63%, with an OR of 0.368 (95% CI: 0.182-0.746). Although there was a trend toward fewer adverse events with NPWT, the effect did not reach statistical significance (log OR: 0.1548; 95% CI: -0.4364 to 0.7460). These findings underscore the clinical efficacy of NPWT in the management of DFUs. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis confirm the effectiveness of NPWT in improving wound closure, accelerating recovery, and reducing amputation rates in patients with DFUs.
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.