ArticleHeliyon2024
Sequence analysis of microbiota in clinical human cases with diabetic foot ulcers from China.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Targeting the gut microbiota: emerging strategies to enhance healing of diabetic foot ulcers.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Dynamic remodeling of skin microbiota during healthy homeostatic and wound repair conditions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Review
- Uncovering the gut - skin axis: the role of specific traditional Chinese medicine interventions in regulating gut microbiota for diabetic foot ulcers and the analysis of research status.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The healing process of diabetic ulcers correlates with changes in the cutaneous microbiota.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) seriously threaten the health and quality of life of patients. The microbiota is the primary reason for the refractory and high recurrence of DFU. This study aimed to determine the wound microbiota at different DFU stages. Methods: Wound samples were collected from 48 patients with DFU and divided into three phases: inflammatory (I, n = 49), proliferation (P, n = 22), and remodeling (R, n = 19). The wound samples obtained at different stages were then subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in the different groups was calculated according to the criterion of 97 % sequence similarity. The diversity of the microbiota differentially presented bacterial taxa at the phylum and genus levels, and important phyla and genera in the different groups were further explored. Results: After sequencing, 3351, 925, and 777 OTUs were observed in groups I, P, and R, respectively, and 175 OTUs overlapped. Compared with the inflammatory stage, the α-diversity of wound microbiota at proliferation and remodeling stages was significantly decreased ( Conclusions: There were significant differences in the composition and structure of the wound microbiota in patients with DFU at different stages, which may lay a foundation for effectively promoting wound healing in DFU.
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.