ReviewBiomedical reports2026
Platelet-rich plasma in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (Review).
Review in Biomedical reports, 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
Diabetes mellitus represents a major global health concern, frequently complicated by chronic, non-healing wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). These ulcers are a leading cause of morbidity, impaired quality of life and limb amputation among individuals with diabetes. The impaired healing capacity observed in DFUs results from persistent inflammation, ischemia and a deficiency of local growth factors, which together hinder effective tissue regeneration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous or allogeneic concentrate of platelets, fibrin, cytokines and leukocytes, has been proposed as a biologically active adjunct capable of accelerating tissue regeneration. The present study performed a narrative review of clinical trials and comparative studies assessing PRP therapy compared with the standard of care (SOC) in the treatment of DFUs. Across the reviewed literature, PRP demonstrated higher complete healing rates and a shorter time-to-closure compared with the SOC. In addition, a reduction in infection rates, pain intensity and ulcer recurrence was consistently reported, with minimal adverse effects. Both autologous and allogeneic PRP preparations were effective, and no major difference was observed between topical application and perilesional injection. In conclusion, PRP therapy represents a safe and promising option for enhancing wound healing in patients with DFUs. However, the lack of standardized preparation protocols and heterogeneous study methodologies underscores the need for well-designed, multicenter randomized trials to confirm these findings and to establish optimal treatment parameters.
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.