SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2026
Efficacy and safety of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in the treatment of diabetic foot: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) represent a serious diabetic complication requiring effective therapeutic interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes and safety profile of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC), an innovative localized drug delivery approach, for managing DFU patients. Methods: From their inception through October 2025, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM Database. Our analysis focused exclusively on randomized clinical trials that compared ALBC therapy with standard treatment protocols in diabetic foot cases. The primary endpoints assessed were wound healing time and clinical effective rate. Secondary outcome measures encompassed length of hospitalization, surgical intervention frequency, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment, and limb preservation rates. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with random-effects modeling to account for potential heterogeneity. Results: 22 RCTs involving 1,295 patients were included. All studies were conducted in China. Pooled analysis demonstrated that ALBC significantly shortened wound healing time (Mean Difference [MD] = -7.10 days, 95% CI: -12.88 to -1.32, p = 0.016, I² = 96%) and improved the clinical effective rate (Odds Ratio [OR] = 4.05, 95% CI: 2.70 to 6.07, p < 0.001, I² = 9.9%) compared to control. Furthermore, ALBC reduced the number of surgeries. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was -1.88, with a 95% CI from -3.29 to -0.47. It also reduced hospital stay, with a mean difference (MD) of -8.56 days and a 95% CI from -12.33 to -4.79. The VAS pain score was reduced, with an SMD of -1.29 and a 95% CI from -1.89 to -0.69. Additionally, the amputation rate was reduced, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.19 and a 95% CI from 0.07 to 0.50. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses generally supported the robustness of these findings. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion: Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) therapy demonstrates significant efficacy and safety in managing diabetic foot ulcers, promoting rapid tissue regeneration while minimizing adverse effects. This intervention correlates with enhanced wound closure rates, diminished pain perception, decreased surgical intervention frequency, reduced hospitalization duration, and lower extremity amputation incidence. Current evidence substantiates the clinical implementation of ALBC therapy; however, additional rigorously designed investigations are warranted to strengthen the external validity of these findings across diverse patient populations.
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.