Trial reportInternational wound journal2026
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Portable Continuous Topical Oxygen Therapy for Chronic Wound Management: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Portable Continuous Topical Oxygen Therapy for Chronic Wound Management: A Randomised Controlled Trial.International wound journal · 2026Trial
- Microalgae: emerging forces and prospects in the field of wound healing.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Although topical oxygen therapy (TOT) is a promising treatment for chronic wounds, its clinical efficacy and safety remain to be rigorously established. We conducted a two-arm randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TOT for treating chronic wounds by a commercially available portable continuous diffusion of oxygen (CDO) system. Eighty-eight patients were allocated to the TOT (n = 44) or moist wound therapy (MWT) (n = 44) group for a 28-day intervention period, followed by standardised MWT for unhealed wounds until the 12-week endpoint. Eighty-eight patients were allocated to either the TOT group (n = 44) or the standard MWT group (n = 44) for 28 days (or until wound closure) and were followed for up to 12 weeks. Wound area, depth, pH, healing rate and healing time were assessed weekly for 28 days or until 12 weeks. Any adverse event was observed at the same time. At day 28, the TOT group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in wound area and depth compared with the MWT group (p < 0.05). The wound bed pH in the TOT group was lower than the MWT group at day 14 and 28. Although the healing rate was higher in the TOT group than in the MWT group at day 28 (45.5% vs. 11.4%, p < 0.001), the healing rate in both groups was similar at week 12 (95.5% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.536). The healing time of the TOT group was shorter than that of the MWT group at week 12 by 13.5 days (95% CI: 6.74-15.40; p = 0.004). No TOT-related adverse events were reported. These findings indicate that portable TOT can significantly accelerate wound healing, particularly by improving wound bed pH that could facilitate subsequent healing processes in patients with chronic wounds.
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.