SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of resina draconis as an adjuvant therapy for diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Resina Draconis, a traditional Chinese herbal medicine with wound-healing properties, has been increasingly used as an adjunctive treatment for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Resina Draconis in the treatment of DFUs. Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 2025. Eligible studies compared Resina Draconis combined with conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone in patients with DFUs. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 1,011 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that adjunctive treatment with Resina Draconis significantly improved the overall healing response (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.20-0.39; P < 0.00001), shortened wound-healing time (MD = -11.66; 95% CI, -21.62 to -1.69; P = 0.02), and reduced serum C-reactive protein levels (MD = -1.99; 95% CI, -2.99 to -0.99; P < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Resina Draconis may be an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for DFUs, potentially enhancing wound healing and reducing systemic inflammation. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited sample sizes and potential publication bias of the included studies. Further large-scale, rigorously designed RCTs are needed to confirm these results. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD42020189060.
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.