ReviewJornal vascular brasileiro2026
Systemic antibiotics for diabetes mellitus-related foot infections: an integrative literature review.
Review in Jornal vascular brasileiro, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence on antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections can help clinical management. The objective of this study was to identify the evidence on systemic antibiotics for treatment of diabetes mellitus-related foot infections. An integrative literature review was conducted of randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The keywords "Diabetic foot" AND "Antibiotics" were used to search PubMed and 15 articles were selected (nine randomized clinical trials, four systematic reviews, and two meta-analyses). Seven randomized clinical trials revealed clinical results that were comparable for beta lactam antibiotics with beta-lactamase inhibitors, carbapenems, and fluoroquinolones. Two randomized clinical trials found significant differences comparing ertapenem and tigecycline and in analyses of subsets with severe infections between piperacillin-tazobactam and ertapenem. The literature revealed comparable clinical results for different systemic antibiotics used to treat foot infections related to diabetes, except for the difference between ertapenem and tigecycline, which did not meet the parameters for non-inferiority, highlighting the need for higher-quality evidence.
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.