ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2026
Platelet-Rich Plasma for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Appraisal of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.
Article in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) remains challenging, and the benefits and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy are still debated. This study analyzed existing meta-analyses on PRP therapy for DFUs to identify the most reliable evidence source. Methods: This cross-sectional appraisal was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidance. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 20, 2026, for meta-analyses comparing PRP therapy with standard or conventional care for DFUs. Only meta-analyses based exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR, evidence level was classified according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence, and discordant findings were examined using the Jadad decision algorithm. Results: Eleven meta-analyses were included in this study, all of which were categorized as Level II evidence. The AMSTAR scores ranged from 6 to 10 (median 8). The meta-analysis identified by the Jadad algorithm as the most robust source showed that autologous PRP improved complete ulcer healing rates (OR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.55-2.86) and shortened complete healing time (MD: -19.04 days; 95% CI: -20.46 to -17.61) compared with standard care. Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events in PRP groups was not significantly different from that in standard care groups, and the results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: PRP is an effective adjunctive therapy for DFUs, with no statistically significant increase in reported adverse events. However, further large-scale, high-quality trials are needed to standardize PRP preparation and administration, and to establish optimal treatment protocols.
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.