ReviewCureus2026
Clinical and Histopathological Outcomes of High-Purity Type I Collagen in Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review of Four Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic wounds such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs), pressure ulcers (PUs), diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), and full-thickness wounds (FTWs) are characterized by impaired angiogenesis, persistent inflammation, and extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation. High-purity type I collagen (HPTC) is a biomimetic scaffold designed to restore physiological wound healing by enhancing vascularization, fibroblast activation, and collagen deposition. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-guided systematic search of PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar was conducted. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HPTC with dHACM or NPWT. Cochrane RoB-2 was applied for risk-of-bias assessment. A total of four RCTs evaluating VLUs (n=60), PUs (n=80), DFUs (n=120), and FTWs (n=104) were included in this review and analysed. All four RCTs (n=364 patients) had HPTC consistently outperforming comparators in closure rates (70-87% vs. 42-62%), wound-area reduction (78-89% vs. 58-65%), and healing time. Histopathological evaluation demonstrated significantly better vascular infiltration (+0.78 on a 0-3 scale), increased capillary density (+16.5 vessels/mm²), higher fibroblast activity (+0.88), improved collagen deposition (+0.96), reduced inflammatory infiltrate (-0.86), and enhanced neo-epithelialization (+0.94). Adverse events were fewer with HPTC (11.5% vs. 34.6%). Across all four RCTs, HPTC consistently outperformed dHACM and NPWT alone in both clinical and histopathological outcomes, demonstrating faster healing, improved microvascularization, enhanced fibroblast activity, better collagen organization, and reduced inflammation. The strong concordance between early tissue-level regeneration and long-term closure outcomes positions HPTC as a superior biological scaffold for chronic and full-thickness wound management. Its versatility, safety, and synergy with NPWT support its use as a frontline advanced wound therapy.
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.