ArticleDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2025
Efficacy and Safety of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.
Article in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a key intervention for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). However, the body of meta-analytic evidence is fraught with conflicting findings, creating significant clinical uncertainty. This study was designed to harmonize the discordant evidence, identify the most methodologically robust meta-analysis, and formulate a clear, evidence-based recommendation for the clinical use of NPWT. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all pertinent meta-analyses. The methodological quality of each included review was rigorously assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was then employed to systematically select the most reliable and robust evidence. Results: Eight meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria, with AMSTAR scores ranging from 6 to 9. The formal application of the Jadad decision algorithm identified the meta-analysis by Deng et al as the definitive source of best available evidence. This meta-analysis demonstrated that NPWT significantly improved wound healing rates (risk ratio = 1.46) and decreased amputation rates (risk ratio = 0.69) relative to conventional therapy, while also shortening granulation tissue formation time without increasing adverse events. Conclusion: The highest-quality evidence, harmonized through this appraisal, confirms that NPWT is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for DFUs. Its demonstrated ability to accelerate healing while reducing amputations provides a strong evidence base for consideration as a key component of standard clinical practice.
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.