Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective, randomised, controlled, multi‐centre comparative effectiveness study of healing using dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft, bioengineered skin substitute or standard of care for treatment of chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers

Zelen, Charles M, Gould, Lisa, Serena, Thomas E, Carter, Marissa J, Keller, Jennifer, Li, William W·2015·International Wound Journal

Abstract

A prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi‐centre clinical trial was conducted at three sites to compare the healing effectiveness of treatment of chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers with either weekly applications of Apligraf ® (Organogenesis, Inc., Canton, MA ), EpiFix ® ( MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, GA ), or standard wound care with collagen‐alginate dressing. The primary study outcome was the percent change in complete wound healing after 4 and 6 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included percent change in wound area per week, velocity of wound closure and a calculation of the amount and cost of Apligraf or EpiFix used . A total of 65 subjects entered the 2‐week run‐in period and 60 were randomised (20 per group). The proportion of patients in the EpiFix group achieving complete wound closure within 4 and 6 weeks was 85% and 95%, significantly higher (all adjusted P ‐values ≤ 0·003) than for patients receiving Apligraf (35% and 45%), or standard care (30% and 35%). After 1 week, wounds treated with EpiFix had reduced in area by 83·5% compared with 53·1% for wounds treated with Apligraf. Median time to healing was significantly faster (all adjusted P ‐values ≤0·001) with EpiFix (13 days) compared to Apligraf (49 days) or standard care (49 days). The mean number of grafts used and the graft cost per patient were lower in the EpiFix group campared to the Apligraf group, at 2·15 grafts at a cost of $1669 versus 6·2 grafts at a cost of $9216, respectively. The results of this study demonstrate the clinical and resource utilisation superiority of EpiFix compared to Apligraf or standard of care, for the treatment of diabetic ulcers of the lower extremities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/iwj.12395

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.007 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.2337/dc12-2625 · DOI
  3. 10.2337/dc08-9021 · DOI
  4. Driver VR, 2008, Health economic implications for wound care and limb preservation, J Manag Care Med, 11, 13
  5. Snyder R, 2010, Wound percent area reduction and making decisions about utilizing advanced therapies, Podiatry Manage, 29, 197
  6. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2006.00176.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/S0891-8422(02)00018-6 · DOI
  8. HoC TranK HuxM SibbaldG CampbellK.Artificial skin grafts in chronic wound care: a meta‐analysis of clinical efficacy and a review of cost‐effectiveness[Tech. Rep. No. 52]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment 2005.
  9. 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1111/iwj.12097 · DOI
  12. Fetterolf DE, 2014, An evaluation of healing metrics associated with commonly used advanced wound care products for the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers, Manag Care, 23, 31
  13. 10.1111/iwj.12140 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.jss.2014.08.045 · DOI
  15. 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.7.347 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/iwj.12242 · DOI
  17. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000288217.83128.f3 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2011.00673.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1097/00129334-200511000-00013 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/wrr.12154 · DOI
  21. Brem H, 2003, Clinical efficacy and mechanism of bilayered living human skin equivalent (HSE) in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, Surg Technol Int, 11, 23
  22. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.04563.x · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0896-1549(02)00110-4 · DOI
  24. 10.22203/eCM.v015a07 · DOI
  25. 10.1002/jbm.b.33141 · DOI
  26. Chen Z, 2014, Therapeutic implications of newly identified stem cell populations from the skin dermis, Cell Transplant
  27. 10.1016/j.trsl.2013.11.009 · DOI
  28. 10.1172/JCI29710 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/j.jss.2007.03.051 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/jbm.b.33265 · DOI
  31. 10.1186/1472-6963-9-115 · DOI

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Zelen, C. M., Gould, L., Serena, T. E., Carter, M. J., Keller, J., & Li, W. W.
Venue
International Wound Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-26
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
724-732
ISSN
  • 1742-4801
  • 1742-481X
Cited by
165
References
1
Language
en
Funders
MiMedx Group, Inc.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A prospective, randomised, controlled, multi‐centre comparative effectiveness study of healing using dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft, bioengineered skin substitute or standard of care for treatment of chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/iwj.12395
The paper
Zelen, C. M., Gould, L., Serena, T. E., Carter, M. J., Keller, J., & Li, W. W. (2015). A prospective, randomised, controlled, multi‐centre comparative effectiveness study of healing using dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft, bioengineered skin substitute or standard of care for treatment of chronic lower extremity diabetic ulcers. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12395

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.