SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Honey dressing for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of honey dressing compared to conventional dressings in the treatment of DFUs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar internet were searched from inception to Jan 31, 2026 for RCTs comparing honey dressing with conventional dressings in DFU patients. Primary outcomes were complete wound healing rate and time to complete healing. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: Sixteen RCTs involving 1423 participants were included. The sample sizes ranged from 23 to 348 participants. The follow-up duration varied from 4 to 24 weeks. Meta-analysis showed that honey dressing significantly improved the complete healing rate (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.95) and reduced the time to complete healing (MD -4.38, 95% CI -8.06 to -0.71) compared to controls. According to the GRADE system, the overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of time to healing was rated as 'Low', and the quality of evidence for the outcomes of healing rate was rated as 'moderate'. Conclusion: Honey dressing is a safe and more effective intervention for DFUs than conventional dressings, associated with significantly improved healing rates and faster healing time. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251244450, identifier CRD420251244450.
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.