SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Comparative efficacy of advanced therapeutic modalities for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis including NPWT, stem cells, ESWT, and bioengineered treatments.
Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are highly debilitating and often necessitate cutting-edge treatments apart from the usual care. This systematic review and meta-analysis have compared the efficacy of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT)/VAC, cell-based therapies (MSC-based therapies), artificial skin, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) interventions in promoting healing of difficult wounds, as well as healing by other means. Methods: The extensive search identified 49 randomized controlled trials. For data analysis, a random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting was used to obtain standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The presence of publication bias was determined using funnel plots and Egger's test, while the quality of the studies was assessed by means of Jadad scores and risk of bias tools. GRADE was employed to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results: Sub-group analysis revealed that NPWT significantly accelerated wound closure compared to standard care SMD of -0.39 (95% CI: 0.57 to -0.21; I Conclusion: The NPWT and MSC-based therapy, in particular, represent major improvements in healing outcomes for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and in the speed of closure compared with standard treatment.
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.