910 Cellular versus acellular matrix devices in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: preliminary results of a comparative efficacy randomized controlled trial

Tchanque-Fossuo, Catherine N.; Dahle, Sara E.; Lev‐Tov, Hadar; Li, C.; Isseroff, Roslyn Rivkah

doi:10.1016/j.jid.2017.02.937

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, screening of titles and abstracts resulted in the removal of 165 citations in accordance with the inclusion or exclusion criteria. After reading the full texts, 36 articles were excluded, three of them were duplicate studies [16][17][18], one of them was a conference abstract without available full text [19], while the other one only included 6 patients in the control group [20]. Finally, 9 RCTs were eligible for this metaanalysis [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Efficacy and Safety of Acellular Matrix Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Huang

Chen

Wang

et al. 2020

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Acellular matrix (AM) therapy has shown promise in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in several studies. The clinical effects of AM therapy were not well established. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of AM therapy for patients with DFUs. Methods. A literature search of 5 databases was performed to identify RCTs comparing AM therapy to standard therapy (ST) in patients with DFUs. The primary outcome was the complete healing rate and the secondary outcomes mainly included time to complete healing and adverse events. Results. Nine RCTs involving 897 patients were included. Compared with ST group, patients allocated to AM group had a higher complete healing rate both at 12 weeks (risk ratio RR=1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31 to 2.30) and 16 weeks (RR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.91), a shorter time to complete healing (mean difference MD=−2.41; 95% CI: -3.49 to -1.32), and fewer adverse events (RR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.93). Conclusion. The present study suggests that AM therapy as an adjuvant treatment could further promote the healing of full-thickness, noninfected, and nonischemia DFUs. AM therapy also has a safety profile. More large well-designed randomized clinical trials with long follow-up duration are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of AM therapy for DFUs.

show abstract