ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2026
Collagen-based dressings for diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review.
Review in Caspian journal of internal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of collagen-based dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), compared to standard wound care (SWC), human amniotic membrane allografts (hAMA), and decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) products. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published between December 2013 and March 2025 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Eligible studies assessed collagen-based dressings for DFUs, with primary outcomes including wound area reduction, closure rates, and healing time. Adverse events were considered secondary outcomes. Due to heterogeneity, findings were narratively synthesized by dressing type. Results: Twenty-two studies (15 RCTs, 7 cohort studies) were included. Collagen-based dressings consistently outperformed SWC, achieving greater wound reduction (54.5--88.2%), higher closure rates (22.2--82.4%), and shorter healing times (21--83.5 days), with no serious treatment-related adverse events. Helicoll showed superior performance (wound reduction: 84--86.5%; closure: 50--71.4%). Comparisons with hAMA and dECM yielded mixed and heterogeneous results, without consistent evidence of superiority. RCTs favored hAMA over Apligraf, while some real-world studies reported the opposite. Findings on collagen/ORC/silver dressings versus dECM were also inconsistent. Conclusions: Collagen-based dressings are safe and effective for improving DFU healing when compared with standard wound care. However, current evidence is insufficient and heterogeneous to establish superiority over other advanced biologic therapies. Further head-to-head randomized trials are warranted.
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.