SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2026
Topical therapies for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 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.
- A Narrative Review of Local Therapies in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Promises, Limitations and Unmet Needs.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDiabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a life-threatening complication associated with high amputation and mortality rates. While numerous topical therapies exist, their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of topical therapies for DFUs to identify optimal treatment strategies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to February 1, 2025, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating topical therapies for DFUs. We excluded non-topical interventions to ensure clinically relevant comparisons. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was wound healing rate.
resultsWe included 51 RCTs involving 6161 patients and 23 interventions. 12 topical therapies, including placenta-derived products, platelet-related products, ON101, epidermal growth factor, and tissue-engineered skin substitutes, significantly improved wound healing rates vs standard of care (SOC). Placenta-derived products showed the greatest efficacy (OR 7.85 (95% credible interval (CrI) 4.62 to 14.15)) and were the only intervention to significantly reduce adverse events vs SOC (0.25 (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.60)). No interventions differed significantly from SOC in time to wound healing, serious adverse events, or infections.
conclusionsPlacenta-derived products and other biological or advanced topical therapies may demonstrate greater efficacy than the SOC in facilitating the healing of DFUs. Nevertheless, the certainty of evidence for most comparisons remains in the low-to-moderate range. These findings suggest potential benefits in integrating these therapies into the management of DFUs. However, high-quality RCTs are necessary to verify long-term outcomes.
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.