Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 66

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre clinical trial examining healing rates, safety and cost to closure of an acellular reticular allogenic human dermis versus standard of care in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers

Zelen, Charles M, Orgill, Dennis P, Serena, Thomas, Galiano, Robert, Carter, Marissa J, DiDomenico, Lawrence A, Keller, Jennifer, Kaufman, Jarrod, Li, William W·2017·International Wound Journal

Abstract

Acellular dermal matrices can successfully heal wounds. This study's goal was to compare clinical outcomes of a novel, open‐structure human reticular acellular dermis matrix ( HR‐ADM ) to facilitate wound closure in non‐healing diabetic foot ulcers ( DFUs ) versus DFUs treated with standard of care ( SOC ). Following a 2‐week screening period in which DFUs were treated with offloading and moist wound care, patients were randomised to either SOC alone or HR‐ADM plus SOC applied weekly for up to 12 weeks. At 6 weeks, the primary outcome time, 65% of the HR‐ADM ‐treated DFUs healed (13/20) compared with 5% (1/20) of DFUs that received SOC alone. At 12 weeks, the proportions of DFUs healed were 80% and 20%, respectively. Mean time to heal within 12 weeks was 40 days for the HR‐ADM group compared with 77 days for the SOC group. There was no incidence of increased adverse or serious adverse events between groups or any adverse events related to the graft. Mean and median graft costs to closure per healed wound in the HR‐ADM group were $1475 and $963, respectively. Weekly application of HR‐ADM is an effective intervention for promoting closure of non‐healing DFUs .

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.12600

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.

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1001/jama.2015.10029 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1001/jama.2015.10030 · DOI
  3. Margolis DJ, 2011, Incidence of diabetic foot ulcer and lower extremity amputation among medicare beneficiaries, 2006 to 2008: Data Points #2
  4. 10.2337/diacare.22.5.692 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1696 · DOI
  6. 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1879 · DOI
  7. Snyder RJ, 2010, A post‐hoc analysis of reduction in diabetic foot ulcer size at 4 weeks as a predictor of healing by 12 weeks, Ostomy Wound Manage, 56, 44
  8. 10.2337/dc07-1300 · DOI
  9. 10.2337/dc12-1323 · DOI
  10. Harding K, 2010, An expert working group review. International consensus: acellular matrices for the treatment of wounds
  11. Irion G, 2010, Comprehensive wound management, 3
  12. Mast BA, 1992, Wound healing: biochemical and clinical aspects, 344
  13. Wilgus TA, 2007, Regenerative healing in fetal skin: a review of the literature, Ostomy Wound Manage, 53, 16
  14. 10.1097/01.prs.0000258829.07399.f0 · DOI
  15. 10.5402/2012/698034 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91838-6 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0305-4179(00)00096-6 · DOI
  18. Woo KY, 2009, A cross‐sectional validation study of using NERDS and STONEES to assess bacterial burden, Ostomy Wound Manage, 55, 40
  19. Wendelken ME, 2011, Wounds measured from digital photographs using photodigital planimetry software: validation and rater reliability, Wounds, 23, 267
  20. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1046/j.1524-475X.1999.00201.x · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00585.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1111/iwj.12395 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1111/iwj.12566 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1016/j.addr.2003.08.003 · DOI
  28. 10.1083/jcb.201403039 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/iwj.12185 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Brigido SA, 2004, Effective management of major lower extremity wounds using an acellular regenerative tissue matrix: a pilot study, Orthopedics, 27, s145, 10.3928/0147-7447-20040102-14 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00209.x · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Zelen, C. M., Orgill, D. P., Serena, T., Galiano, R., Carter, M. J., DiDomenico, L. A., Keller, J., Kaufman, J., & Li, W. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Medical Education Professional Education and Research Institute Roanoke VA USA
  • Department of Plastic Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USA
  • Serena Group Cambridge MA USA
  • Division of Plastic Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago IL USA
  • Strategic Solutions Inc. Cody WY USA
  • Lower Extremity Institute for Research and Therapy Youngstown OH USA
  • Shenandoah Lower Extremity Research Troutville VA USA
  • General Surgery Premier Surgical Brick NJ USA
  • The Angiogenesis Foundation Cambridge MA USA
Venue
International Wound Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-12
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
307-315
ISSN
  • 1742-4801
  • 1742-481X
Cited by
66
References
0
Language
en
Funders
Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation

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, multicentre clinical trial examining healing rates, safety and cost to closure of an acellular reticular allogenic human dermis versus standard of care in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/iwj.12600
The paper
Zelen, C. M., Orgill, D. P., Serena, T., Galiano, R., Carter, M. J., DiDomenico, L. A., Keller, J., Kaufman, J., & Li, W. W. (2017). A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre clinical trial examining healing rates, safety and cost to closure of an acellular reticular allogenic human dermis versus standard of care in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12600

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.