The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The efficacy and safety of Grafix® for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a multi‐centre, controlled, randomised, blinded, clinical trial
Abstract
In a randomised, controlled study, we compared the efficacy of Grafix®, a human viable wound matrix (hVWM) (N = 50), to standard wound care (n = 47) to heal diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete wound closure by 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included the time to wound closure, adverse events and wound closure in the crossover phase. The proportion of patients who achieved complete wound closure was significantly higher in patients who received Grafix (62%) compared with controls (21%, P = 0·0001). The median time to healing was 42 days in Grafix patients compared with 69·5 days in controls (P = 0·019). There were fewer Grafix patients with adverse events (44% versus 66%, P = 0·031) and fewer Grafix patients with wound‐related infections (18% versus 36·2%, P = 0·044). Among the study subjects that healed, ulcers remained closed in 82·1% of patients (23 of 28 patients) in the Grafix group versus 70% (7 of 10 patients) in the control group (P = 0·419). Treatment with Grafix significantly improved DFU healing compared with standard wound therapy. Importantly, Grafix also reduced DFU‐related complications. The results of this well‐controlled study showed that Grafix is a safe and more effective therapy for treating DFUs than standard wound therapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As to clinical application, mostly ADM is used 1 or 2 times, while cellular skin substitute is reported to be 4 to 8 times due to short shelf-life, death of live cell [31,36,40].”
From Efficacy and safety of acellular dermal matrix in diabetic foot ulcer treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.10.040 · DOI · Paper page
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2008, 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet
- 10.2337/dc12-2625 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.293.2.217 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2001.00280.x · DOI
- 10.2337/dc12-0200 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2005.00083.x · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.22.5.692 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c722bb · DOI
- 10.5966/sctm.2011-0018 · DOI
- 10.2307/2531692 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00585.x · DOI · Paper page
- Regulski M, 2013, A retrospective analysis of a human cellular repair matrix for the treatment of chronic wounds, Ostomy Wound Manage, 59, 38
- Armstrong DG, 1998, Peak foot pressures influence the healing time of diabetic foot ulcers treated with total contact casts, J Rehabil Res Dev, 35, 1
- 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182024864 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.19.8.818 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.28.3.551 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.28.3.555 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.24.6.1019 · DOI
- 10.2337/dc08-0771 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/dmrr.2386 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.12.6.384 · DOI · Paper page
- Steed DL, 1996, Effect of extensive debridement and treatment on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetic Ulcer Study Group, J Am Coll Surg, 183, 61
- 10.1046/j.1524-475X.2002.10603.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.11.030 · DOI
- 10.2337/dc05-2425 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/dc07-1302 · DOI
- Davis J, 1910, Skin transplantation with a review of 550 cases at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, John Hopkins Med J, 15, 307
- Sabella N, 1913, Use of fetal membranes in skin grafting, Med Records NY, 83, 478
- 10.1001/jama.1913.04340130021008 · DOI
- ArnoldY LerouxJD WilliamsM DanilkovitchA. A comparison study of the anti‐oxidant effects of cellular versus acellular human repair matrices. In:Symposium on Advanced Wound Care; 2013 May 2–5; Las Vegas (NV).
- ArnoldY LerouxJD WilliamsM DanilkovitchA. A comparison study of the angiogenic effect of cellular versus acellular human repair matrices. In:Symposium on Advanced Wound Care; 2013 May 2–5; Las Vegas (NV).
- ArnoldY LerouxJD WilliamsM DanilkovitchA. A comparison study of the anti‐inflammatory effects of cellular versus acellular human repair matrices. In:Symposium on Advanced Wound Care; 2013 May 2–5; Las Vegas (NV).
Cited by
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
Armstrong, D. G., Tan, T.-W., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.10578 · Cited by 1,928
A clinical trial of Integra Template for diabetic foot ulcer treatment
Driver, V. R., Lavery, L. A., Reyzelman, A. M., Dutra, T. G., Dove, C. R., Kotsis, S. V., Kim, H. M., & Chung, K. C. (2015) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12357 · Cited by 291
Self-citationChen, P., Vilorio, N. C., Dhatariya, K., Jeffcoate, W., Lobmann, R., McIntosh, C., Piaggesi, A., Steinberg, J., Vas, P., Viswanathan, V., et al. (2024) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.3644 · Cited by 246
Publicly reported wound healing rates: the fantasy and the reality.
Fife, C. E., Eckert, K. A., & Carter, M. J. (2018) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2017.0743 · Cited by 132
Guo, X., Mu, D., & Gao, F. (2017) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.008 · Cited by 80
Mohammed, Y. A., Farouk, H. K., Gbreel, M. I., Ali, A. M., Salah, A. A., Nourelden, A. Z., & Gawad, M. M. A. (2022) · Journal of Foot and Ankle Research · doi:10.1186/s13047-022-00575-y · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Lavery, L. A., Fulmer, J., Shebetka, K. A., Regulski, M., Vayser, D., Fried, D., Kashefsky, H., Owings, T. M., Nadarajah, J., & The Grafix Diabetic Foot Ulcer Study Group
- Affiliations
- Department of Plastic Surgery University of Texas Southwestern Dallas TX USA
- River City Clinical Research Jacksonville FL USA
- Clinical Trials of Texas San Antonio TX USA
- Ocean County Foot and Ankle Toms River NJ USA
- ILD Research Center Carlsbad CA USA
- Omega Medical Research Warwick RI USA
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA
- Cleveland Clinic Cleveland OH USA
- Aiyan Diabetes Center Evans GA USA
- Venue
- International Wound Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-07-21
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 554-560
- ISSN
- 1742-4801
- 1742-481X
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Osiris Therapeutics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.