SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of debridement strategies for chronic lower-extremity wounds: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: This study aimed to compare debridement strategies for chronic lower-extremity wounds using a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: This study followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were searched from January 1990 to February 2026. Randomized controlled trials involving venous leg ulcers, arterial or ischemic ulcers, mixed arterial-venous ulcers, or diabetic foot ulcers were included. The outcomes included wound healing, complete debridement, pain score, procedure time, and time to healing. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rankings were interpreted according to the clinical direction of each outcome. Results: A total of 25 randomized controlled trials were included. For wound healing, biological debridement (BIO) had the highest ranking probability (SUCRA = 99.5%), followed by enzymatic debridement (ENZ) (83.1%) and mechanical debridement (MECH) (65.9%). For complete debridement, biological debridement ranked first (95.7%), followed by enzymatic debridement (70.9%), autolytic debridement (AUTO) (32.2%), and standard care (SC) (1.2%). For pain score, procedure time, and time to healing, lower values represented better outcomes; rankings for these endpoints were therefore interpreted in that direction. Enzymatic and autolytic debridement ranked more favorably for pain score, biological and ultrasound-assisted debridement (US) for procedure time, and biological and autolytic debridement for time to healing. Several comparisons had wide credible intervals, and certainty of evidence was limited by clinical heterogeneity, sparse networks, and methodological limitations. Conclusion: The comparative profile of debridement strategies varied by the outcome. Biological and enzymatic debridement ranked favorably for wound healing and complete debridement, whereas enzymatic and autolytic debridement were associated with lower pain scores. Ultrasound-assisted debridement may be more efficient in terms of procedure time. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because ranking probabilities do not establish clinically decisive superiority, especially when evidence is sparse or heterogeneous. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261341535.
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.