ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Effectiveness and safety of Chinese traditional medicine Ulcer Ointment for skin ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ulcer Ointment (UO), a topical agent derived from traditional Chinese medicine, has been widely used for skin ulcers. This review evaluates its effectiveness and safety. Methods: We systematically searched eight databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on UO for skin ulcers. Pooled mean difference (MD) and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 978 participants with diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, acutely infected ulcers, and pressure ulcers were included. Overall study quality was low. Compared with no intervention, UO was associated with a higher healing rate (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.42-3.52, 2 RCTs, n = 140), reduced ulcer area, shorter healing time, lower pain scores, and elevated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels. UO were more efficacious than standard topical drugs in healing rate (RR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.49-2.34, 8 RCTs, n = 462), percentage reduction in ulcer area (RR = 17.82%, 95% CI: 12.63-23.00, 3 RCTs, n = 179), ulcer area (RR = -1.66 cm Conclusion: Based on the currently available low-quality evidence, UO has shown preliminary indications of potential benefits in ulcer healing, improvement of TCM symptoms, pain alleviation, and elevation of VEGF levels. However, the exact efficacy of UO for skin ulcers requires further validation through high-quality double-blind RCTs.
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.