Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025
Comparative efficacy of different functional hydrogel dressings in healing diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Xiaozhen, Chen Shida, Savitz Benjamin, Yu Nanze, Perdikis Galen, Duckworth Kylie, Dean Yomna, Long Xiao, Lineaweaver William
Аннотация
AIMS: Functional hydrogel dressings offer a promising therapeutic approach, and optimizing their formulations is crucial for improving diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) outcomes. This study explores the comparative efficacy of different functional hydrogel dressings in DFUs treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating functional hydrogel dressings for DFUs treatment. A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI and Web of Science from inception to June 2024. Bayesian network meta-analysis was employed to synthesize and compare the relative efficacy of hydrogel interventions, defined as the number of patients with complete wound closure.
RESULTS: In total, 23 studies involving 1671 patients with DFUs were included. The analysis revealed that immuno-regulating hydrogels (IRHs) had the highest effect estimate (2.2, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.2), compared with anti-bacterial hydrogels (ABHs) ranked last (1.3, 95% CI: 0.78, 2.3). Multi-functional hydrogels (MFHs) and proliferation-promoting hydrogels (PPHs) displayed intermediate effects (1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4). The relative efficacy ranking was IRH > MFH/PPH > ABH > placebo. The risk of adverse events was lower in functional hydrogel groups relative to placebo (0.75, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.96). Node-splitting analysis confirmed the consistency between direct and indirect evidence for IRH versus ABH. A funnel plot analysis indicated no significant publication bias, affirming the robustness of our findings.
CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of functional hydrogel dressings for DFUs treatment, highlighting the potential of IRH as the most effective option. These insights will guide future research and clinical applications to improve DFUs management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating functional hydrogel dressings for DFUs treatment. A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI and Web of Science from inception to June 2024. Bayesian network meta-analysis was employed to synthesize and compare the relative efficacy of hydrogel interventions, defined as the number of patients with complete wound closure.
RESULTS: In total, 23 studies involving 1671 patients with DFUs were included. The analysis revealed that immuno-regulating hydrogels (IRHs) had the highest effect estimate (2.2, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.2), compared with anti-bacterial hydrogels (ABHs) ranked last (1.3, 95% CI: 0.78, 2.3). Multi-functional hydrogels (MFHs) and proliferation-promoting hydrogels (PPHs) displayed intermediate effects (1.7, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.4). The relative efficacy ranking was IRH > MFH/PPH > ABH > placebo. The risk of adverse events was lower in functional hydrogel groups relative to placebo (0.75, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.96). Node-splitting analysis confirmed the consistency between direct and indirect evidence for IRH versus ABH. A funnel plot analysis indicated no significant publication bias, affirming the robustness of our findings.
CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of functional hydrogel dressings for DFUs treatment, highlighting the potential of IRH as the most effective option. These insights will guide future research and clinical applications to improve DFUs management.