SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
The efficacy of three antimicrobial dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial dressings have been used to treat diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). However, no direct or indirect comparison among silver dressings, honey dressings or antibiotic-impregnated bone cement (ABC) for DFU has been performed to date. Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of the three antimicrobial dressings in the management of DFU. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing silver dressings, honey dressings, and ABC in the treatment of DFU, from database inception to November 2025. Two investigators in-dependently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. Data analyses were conducted using Stata 18.0. Results: A total of 15 RCTs encompassing 1,292 patients were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that ABC demonstrated superiority over standard care in both healing rate and healing time (OR = 4.06, 95% CI [1.48, 11.1], P < 0.05; SMD = -2.25, 95% CI [-4.11, -0.40], P < 0.05). Silver dressings also outperformed standard care in terms of healing rate and wound area reduction (OR = 2.31, 95% CI [1.14, 4.69], P < 0.05; SMD = 1.43, 95% CI [0.39, 2.47], P < 0.05). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, ABC and silver dressings ranked as the most favorable therapeutic options. Conclusions: According to the network meta-analysis and SUCRA ranking results, an-tibiotic bone cement and silver dressings appear to be the most advantageous strategies for DFU management. Future studies should include direct comparisons among various antimicrobial dressings and incorporate cost-effectiveness analyses to guide optimal clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024578370, identifier CRD42024578370.
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.