ArticleJPRAS open2025
Effectiveness of injected versus topically applied platelet-rich plasma in diabetic foot ulcers: A randomized controlled trial with clinical and histopathological assessment.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Practical guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease in China.Burns & trauma · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a serious complication of diabetes that can lead to significant morbidity. Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), rich in growth factors and cytokines, has emerged as a promising treatment to enhance ulcer healing. This study aimed to compare the clinical and histological efficacy of injected PRP versus topically applied PRP and traditional wound care in the management of DFUs. Methods: Sixty patients with DFUs were randomly assigned to three equal groups ( Results: By the end of the 12-week follow-up, 87.5 % of patients treated with PRP (35 out of 40 in Groups A and B) achieved complete ulcer healing, compared to a significantly lower healing rate in the traditional care group (Group C). Histological findings supported the clinical outcomes. No significant difference was found between injected and topically applied PRP in terms of clinical effectiveness. Conclusion: PRP treatment, whether injected or topically applied, significantly enhances the healing of DFUs compared to traditional wound care. Both methods of PRP application demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy.
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.