The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomised controlled trial
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix (FBADM) plus standard of care (SOC) for treating hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Method: A prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was carried out. The study included a 2-week run-in period, a 12-week treatment phase and a 4-week follow-up phase. The primary endpoint was complete wound closure at 12 weeks. Results: Twenty-one US sites enrolled and randomised 226 patients with hard-to-heal DFUs. The study was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 207 patients, with 103 in the FBADM group and 104 in the SOC group. Of these participants, 161 completed the study per protocol (mPP population), with 79 receiving FBADM, and 82 without. At the first analysis point, patients treated with FBADM were found to be significantly more likely to achieve complete wound closure compared with SOC alone (mITT: 45.6% versus 27.9% p=0.008; mPP: 59.5% versus 35.6% p=0.002). The difference in outcome yielded an odds ratio of 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 3.9; p=0.008). Median time to closure within 12 weeks was 43 days for the FBADM group compared to 57 days for the SOC group (p=0.36). The median number of applications of FBADM to achieve closure was one. Adverse events were similar between groups and no product-related serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: These results indicate that in many cases a single application of FBADM in conjunction with SOC offers a safe, faster and more effective treatment of DFUs than SOC alone.
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
“Although the final follow-up wound area was similar between two treatment groups, the percentage area reduction (PAR) was demonstrated to be significantly increased in several studies [23, 26, 27, 31, 34].”
From Effectiveness and safety of dermal matrix used for diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [31]
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
Armstrong, D. G., Swerdlow, M. A., Armstrong, A. A., Conte, M. S., Padula, W. V., & Bus, S. A. (2020) · Journal of Foot and Ankle Research · doi:10.1186/s13047-020-00383-2 · Cited by 975
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-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- 10.1002/dme.1996.13.s1.6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.293.2.217 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13300-012-0004-9 · DOI
- 10.1111/nyas.13569 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13047-017-0243-0 · DOI
- 10.2337/dc12-0200 · DOI
- 10.1002/dmrr.3283 · DOI
- 10.2337/diacare.26.2.491 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.005 · DOI
- 10.1097/00129334-200506000-00012 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00585.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1089/wound.2015.0645 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/iwj.12600 · DOI · Paper page
- Walters J, 2016, Eplasty, 16, e10
- 10.1016/j.cpm.2009.08.001 · DOI
- 10.1177/1938640012449037 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.ASW.0000451891.87020.69 · DOI
- Strauss NH, 2012, Wounds, 24, 327
- 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.Sup10.S12 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.ASW.0000395038.28398.88 · DOI
- 10.7547/1020233 · DOI
- 10.3109/03008208609017473 · DOI
- 10.1155/2013/527957 · DOI
- 10.1111/iwj.12028 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.ASW.0000482354.01988.b4 · DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.12707 · DOI
- Wendelken ME, 2011, Wounds, 23, 267
- 10.1042/bj1570263 · DOI
- 10.1097/00000658-199101000-00013 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.94.5.1852 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.06.006 · DOI
Cited by
Chen, 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
“156,159 Moreover, the lack of negative studies may suggest a degree of publication bias, and most studies were industry ‐ sponsored.”
Sui, L., Xie, Q., Jiang, H.-T., & Li, X.-D. (2024) · BMC Endocrine Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12902-024-01550-3 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Lantis, J. C., Snyder, R., Reyzelman, A. M., Van Gils, C. C., Sigal, F., Vayser, D., Caporusso, J. M., Cazzell, S., Lavery, L. A., & PriMatrix Study Group
- Venue
- Journal of Wound Care
- Publisher
- Mark Allen Group
- Published
- 2021-07-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- Sup7
- Pages
- S18-S27
- ISSN
- 0969-0700
- 2052-2916
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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: Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/jowc.2021.30.sup7.s18
- The paper
- Lantis, J. C., Snyder, R., Reyzelman, A. M., Van Gils, C. C., Sigal, F., Vayser, D., Caporusso, J. M., Cazzell, S., Lavery, L. A., & PriMatrix Study Group. (2021). Fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix for the closure of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Journal of Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2021.30.sup7.s18
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.