SynthesisInternational wound journal2024
The efficacy of topical oxygen therapy for wound healing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy of topical oxygen therapy for wound healing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Flap Salvage Using Topical Oxygen Therapy (Natrox) in a Pediatric Foot Degloving Injury: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Continuously Diffused Oxygen Therapy Compared with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Topical Oxygenation Improves Microvascularity in a Human Ex Vivo Palatal Tissue Model: A Histological Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Article
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
In preclinical studies, topical oxygen treatment (TOT) was shown to enhance wound healing by applying supplemental oxygen topically to the surface of a moist wound at normobaric conditions. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a thorough evaluation of published RCTs and observational studies that compare supplemental TOT with standard wound care. A total of 1077 studies were obtained from a variety of databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, ProQuest, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trial Registers, and Preprints.org. The Jadad scale was employed to assess the reliability of RCT studies, while the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed to assess the quality of observational studies. Seven RCT studies (n = 692) and two controlled observational studies (n = 111) were analysed. The rate of healed wounds was 25.8% in the control group and 43.25% in the adjuvant TOT group, which shows the use of TOT significantly increased the number of healed wounds (RR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.18-2.64; p = 0.005). A significant decrease in the percentage of wound area was found in the TOT group in RCT studies (mean difference = 15.64; 95% CI 5.22-26.06; p = 0.003). In observational studies, the rate of healed wounds was 37.5% in the standard care group and 80.95% in the adjuvant TOT group, which shows a significant increase in the number of healed wounds in the adjuvant TOT group (RR = 2.15; 95% CI 1.46-3.15; p < 0.00001). Topical oxygen therapy is considered a great adjuvant therapy for chronic wound healing, particularly wounds with vascular compromise such as diabetic ulcers and pressure ulcers. Further studies on this topic are still needed as there are a lot of potential uses for this technology in various types of wounds.
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.