ArticleWorld journal of diabetes2025
Efficacy and safety of negative pressure wound therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of diabetes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Current Evidence and Practice.Journal of diabetes · 2026Review
- Predictors of Reamputation in Patients With Advanced-Stage Thromboangiitis Obliterans Ulcers: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Article
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
backgroundDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a significant challenge in diabetic care, and the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in treating them remains a subject of continuous investigation.
aimTo provide a comprehensive meta-analysis of the role of NPWT in the management of DFUs.
methodsA systematic review was performed based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searching databases like PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included to compare NPWT to other dressings for DFUs. Outcomes measured were wound healing time and rate, granulation tissue formation time, amputation rate, and adverse events. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Analyses utilized
resultsOf the 1101 identified articles, 9 RCTs were selected for meta-analysis. Studies spanned from 2005 to 2020 and originated from countries including the United States, Chile, Pakistan, Italy, India, and Germany. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in wound healing rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.46, 95%CI: 1.22-1.76,
conclusionNPWT significantly improves wound healing rates and reduces amputation rates in DFUs. It also hastens the formation of granulation tissue. However, the therapy does not significantly alter the risk of adverse events compared to alternate treatments.
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.