SynthesisFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2026
Moisturizer formulations for diabetic foot xerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 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
Background: Foot xerosis in people with diabetes increases the risk of skin fissuring, ulceration and complications like amputation, sepsis and death. Preventive skin care is therefore important, yet evidence-based guidance on the most effective formulations remains limited. This systematic review aimed to identify effective ingredients and formulations to treat diabetic foot xerosis. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, CENTRAL and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with diabetes and foot xerosis (without ulcers) that compared topical formulations were eligible. Reviewers screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence in accordance with Cochrane Intervention Review standards. Outcomes included xerosis severity, skin hydration, skin barrier integrity and adverse events. Meta-analyses of RCTs were conducted. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024579919). Results: Eleven articles reporting twelve RCTs were included. Functional creams (i.e., base formulations with added ingredients, most commonly humectants, intended to enhance their effect) significantly reduced xerosis severity compared with standard base formulations after both two weeks (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.58, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.11) and four weeks (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.14). The certainty of evidence was moderate. Functional creams significantly increased skin hydration (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.52), although the certainty of evidence was low. Creams containing urea were more effective than standard base creams after four weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.55 to - 0.17), with high-certainty evidence. Adverse events were rare and mild. Conclusions: Functional creams, particularly those containing humectants and primarily urea, show greater efficacy than standard bases. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials with long-term outcomes such as risk of foot ulcers are warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024579919, identifier CRD42024579919.
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.