ArticleInternational wound journal2025
Comparison of Single Use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices in Lower Extremity Ulcers: A US Real-World Evidence Analysis of NetHealth Data.
Article in International wound journal, 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.
- Health resource utilization and cost analysis in Medicare beneficiaries with chronic wounds: outcomes with porcine placental extracellular matrix versus standard of care and other advanced treatments.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Chinese expert consensus on wound repair of venous leg ulcers (2025 edition).Military Medical Research · 2026Article
- Comparison of Single Use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices in Lower Extremity Ulcers: A US Real-World Evidence Analysis of NetHealth Data.International wound journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Annually, 49 million people worldwide are impacted by lower extremity ulcers (LEUs). Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are the most common LEUs. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has emerged as an effective intervention for complex wounds, offering numerous favourable wound healing outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of single-use NPWT (sNPWT) versus traditional NPWT (tNPWT) for wound closure in LEUs. Real-world data was obtained from the US-based Net Health outpatient database between January 2014 and October 2020 and included patients with LEUs (DFU or VLU) who had been treated with sNPWT or tNPWT. The rate of wound closure and time to wound closure were selected as endpoints. The wound closure rate was significantly higher for all LEUs (p = 0.039), VLUs alone (p = 0.003) and there was no difference for DFU (p = 0.90) that were treated with sNPWT versus tNPWT. The median time to wound closure was significantly shorter for sNPWT (114 days) compared to tNPWT (140 days, p < 0.01). Using sNPWT was associated with significantly higher wound closure rates and shorter time to wound closure. The results provide supportive evidence for using sNPWT for LEUs, demonstrating the opportunity to directly decrease the clinical burden of LEUs on patients. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in wound closure rates for VLU, while no significant difference was observed for DFU. The overall LEU findings may be attributed to differences in the mechanisms of action between the two devices.
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.