ReviewCureus2026
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Conventional Dressing in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Comparative Study.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of advanced therapeutic modalities for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis including NPWT, stem cells, ESWT, and bioengineered treatments.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Pooled it
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
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are an important complication of diabetes mellitus and are a major risk factor for amputation. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is suggested as an alternative to traditional wound dressings, but there is limited evidence to support its effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NPWT for the treatment of DFU against traditional dressings. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,099 participants were found after systematic searches in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to April 2025. Complete healing, amputation rates, time to healing, and hospital length of stay were all outcomes. When heterogeneity was present (I² statistic), the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effect or random-effects model. The risk of bias was estimated with RoB 2. NPWT demonstrated reduced amputation rates, but the pooled effect did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.27; I² = 0%; five studies) and time to healing (MD -14.80 days; 95% CI -23.48 to -6.12; I² = 95.29%; six studies). Complete healing favored NPWT but with imprecision (RR 2.02 (95% CI 0.98 to 4.18); I² = 93.18%; three studies). Hospital stay showed a non-significant pooled estimate (MD -8.88 days; 95% CI -19.05 to 1.30; I² = 96.68%; three studies). Subgroup analyses indicated consistent short-term benefits and inconsistent long-term benefits, as the largest pragmatic trial demonstrated no benefit at 16 weeks. Reported benefits of NPWT in DFUs included decreased risk of amputation and improved early wound healing; there was considerable heterogeneity and inconsistent long-term benefits, to reduce the certainty of evidence. The use of NPWT should be considered in appropriate patients, especially those who are at high risk for amputation or have large wounds.
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.