Hydrogel dressings for diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Pooled result · Healing rateResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 4.09 95% CI 2.83–5.91Authors' conclusion
The meta-analysis showed that hydrogel dressings are more effective in treating DFU compared with conventional dressings.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU); PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang searched up to 21 January 2023
- Participants
- 872 patients15 RCTs
- Comparison
- Hydrogel dressings vs conventional dressings
- Outcome
- Healing rate
Methodological detailsfixed/random-effect models, subgroup analyses by hydrogel class
- Fixed/random-effect models
- Subgroup analyses by hydrogel class
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
4.09
95% CI 2.83–5.91
Hydrogel dressingsvs Conventional dressings
OR 4.09 (95% CI 2.83–5.91)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Healing timeShortened with hydrogel | −11.38 (−13.11 to −9.66) | |
| Granulation formationEnhanced with hydrogel | −3.60 (−4.21 to −3.00) | |
| Epithelial formationEnhanced with hydrogel | −2.82 (−3.19 to −2.46) | |
| −20−10010Difference (linear scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Incidence of bacterial infectionReduced with hydrogel | 0.10 (0.05–0.18) | |
| 0.050.21520Odds ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Hydrogel dressings for diabetic foot ulcer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 11 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →