ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
The use of antimicrobial dressings for the management of diabetic foot ulcers: A survey of podiatrists in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Natural products in the treatment of diabetic foot infection.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are commonly contaminated with pathogenic organisms and precede most diabetes-related amputations. Antimicrobial dressings are used in the treatment of DFUs; however, recent guidelines do not support their use. There are no data describing the experience of antimicrobial dressing use among podiatrists in Aotearoa New Zealand (AoNZ). This study aimed to (i) determine which antimicrobial dressings podiatrists in AoNZ use for the management of diabetic foot ulcers; and (ii) determine what factors influence AoNZ podiatrists' use of antimicrobial dressing when managing DFUs.
methodsAn anonymous cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken. Participants were AoNZ registered podiatrists who managed DFUs in their practice. The survey included questions relating to personal and professional demographic characteristics and DFU management and dressing practices. Descriptive statistics were computed to address the research aims.
resultsResponses from 43 AoNZ podiatrists were included. Participants reported both cadexomer iodine and silver dressings were the most common antimicrobial dressings used, with honey dressings being the least frequently used. The most influential factors in choosing antimicrobial dressings when managing DFUs were the presence of current infection, ulcer exudate and ability to prevent future infection. The least influential factors in choosing antimicrobial dressings when managing DFUs were patient preferences, cost of dressings and comfort of dressing/pain on removal.
conclusionsAoNZ podiatrists managing DFUs primarily use antimicrobial dressings containing cadexomer iodine or silver as active ingredients, while lower-cost options, such as honey and povidone iodine are less often used. Current recommendations highlight the lack of evidence to support positive outcomes from any particular antimicrobial dressing over another and advocate that exudate control, comfort and cost be prioritised in decision-making. As cost has been an increasing burden to our healthcare funding, clinicians and organisations may consider this before purchasing and stocking expensive dressings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.