ArticleInternational wound journal2026
Non-Randomised Comparative Analysis and Cost-Minimisation Analysis of Macrophage-Modulating Cream on Mildly Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Real-World Preliminary Report.
Article in International wound journal, 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.
- Successful Healing of a Chronic Distal Toe Ulcer with Tendon Exposure Using the Topical Macrophage Regulator ON101.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are serious complications of diabetes, characterised by impaired healing driven in part by pro-inflammatory macrophage activity. ON101, a topical macrophage-modulating cream, promotes M1-to-M2 transition and improves wound healing. We prospectively enrolled patients with Wagner Grade 2 DFUs and mild infection per the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria to receive ON101 with weekly follow-up. Exclusions included dialysis dependence and inadequate arterial perfusion. The primary endpoint was a 4-week healing outcome. The secondary analysis compared direct costs to a 1:1 retrospective standard of care cohort matched on wound locations and natural history. A total of 12 cases were analysed (mean age: 65.8 years in the ON101 group; 64.6 years old in the control group, p = 0.957). No adverse events occurred. The mean paired difference at the 4-week healing outcome of ON101 was an 87% reduction (95% bootstrap CI: 9.0-244.0) versus the control group. Direct cost per wound healed was approximately 19% lower with ON101. Subjects receiving ON101 demonstrated a significantly faster wound-healing rate within 4 weeks. The direct cost difference between ON101 and SOC mirrored lower resource use. A larger, randomised study with longer follow-up is required to determine the robustness, generalisability and durability of these preliminary results.
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.