SynthesisJournal of diabetes2026
The Role of Negative Pressure Therapy in Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Analysis of factors influencing tension blister formation on the skin at the dressing edges in patients undergoing negative pressure wound therapy].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a severe complication, often leading to amputation. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an advanced treatment option requiring further consolidated evidence. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NPWT versus conventional wound care for DFU, focusing on wound healing, amputation prevention, and adverse events (AEs). We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until October 2025. Twenty-three RCTs involving 2086 participants were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies. Outcomes included wound healing rate, ulcer area reduction, amputation rate, and adverse events. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. NPWT significantly improved the wound healing rate (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.58-7.77), led to a greater reduction in ulcer area (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.70-1.82), and substantially lowered amputation risk (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.64) compared to conventional care. No significant difference was found in adverse events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.56-1.71). Subgroup analyses confirmed benefits across ages, follow-up durations, and control dressings. The healing benefit was most pronounced in less severe ulcers (Wagner grade < 2), while amputation protection was consistent across severities. NPWT is an effective and safe strategy for DFU, significantly accelerating wound healing and reducing amputation risk, supporting its integration as a cornerstone adjunctive therapy.
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.