Comparative efficacy of different functional hydrogel dressings in healing diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Authors' 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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in RCTs of functional hydrogel dressings; PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CNKI and Web of Science from inception to June 2024
- Participants
- 1,671 patients23 studies
- Comparison
- Functional hydrogel dressings vs each other and placebo
- Outcome
- Number of patients with complete wound closure
Methodological detailsnode-splitting analysis, funnel plot analysis
- Node-splitting analysis
- Funnel plot analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Complete wound closure
Effect estimate
2.2
95% CI 1.6–3.2
IRH vs Placebo · highest effect estimate; comparator not stated
Effect estimate
1.7
95% CI 1.2–2.4
MFH/PPH · intermediate effects; printed jointly for MFH and PPH; comparator not stated
Effect estimate
1.3
95% CI 0.78–2.3
ABH vs Placebo · ranked last; comparator not stated
Further pooled results
- Node-splitting confirmed consistency between direct and indirect evidence for IRH vs ABH
- Funnel plot indicated no significant publication bias
Safety
| Outcome | Risk (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Adverse eventsFunctional hydrogels vs Placebo · lower risk with functional hydrogels | 0.75 (0.56–0.96) |
Original publication
Comparative efficacy of different functional hydrogel dressings in healing diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 8 April 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →