ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Meta-analysis on the safety and efficacy of different dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a common and severe complication of diabetes, associated with high morbidity, infection risk, and amputation rates. Various dressings have been applied in clinical practice, yet their comparative safety and efficacy remain unclear. This study aimed to systematically evaluate different dressings for DFU treatment through meta-analysis. Content: Relevant studies from Chinese and English databases were retrieved and analyzed. A total of 25 studies involving 2,421 patients were included. Dichotomous data analysis showed that the experimental group had a significantly higher complete wound healing rate than the control group (OR=4.62, 95 % CI: 3.10-6.90, p<0.01), a significantly lower incidence of wound infection (OR=0.63, 95 % CI: 0.43-0.93, p=0.02), and no significant difference in amputation rate (OR=0.62, 95 % CI: 0.34-1.14, p=0.12). Continuous data analysis indicated that the experimental group had higher wound healing scores (MD=25.77, 95 % CI: 2.33-49.20, p=0.03), greater ulcer area reduction (MD=27.96, 95 % CI: 21.93-34.00, p<0.01), and shorter healing time (MD=-11.41, 95 % CI: -14.35 to -8.47, p<0.01). Meta-regression analysis suggested that publication year, blinding, and outcome indicators contributed to heterogeneity (p<0.05). Summary: Activated carbon cloth (ACC), negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), and olive oil dressings demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy, although each has distinct advantages. Clinical selection should therefore be individualized according to patient conditions and wound characteristics. Outlook: Future studies with larger sample sizes and higher methodological quality are needed to further validate these findings and reduce heterogeneity, thereby providing more robust evidence for clinical decision-making.
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.