Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 36

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

Lantis, John C, Snyder, Robert, Reyzelman, Alexander M, Van Gils, Carl C, Sigal, Felix, Vayser, Dean, Caporusso, Joseph M, Cazzell, Shawn, Lavery, Lawrence A, PriMatrix Study Group·2021·Journal of Wound Care

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12968/jowc.2021.30.sup7.s18

Cites

2 of 2 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

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1002/dme.1996.13.s1.6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1001/jama.293.2.217 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s13300-012-0004-9 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/nyas.13569 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1186/s13047-017-0243-0 · DOI
  6. 10.2337/dc12-0200 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/dmrr.3283 · DOI
  8. 10.2337/diacare.26.2.491 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.09.005 · DOI
  10. 10.1097/00129334-200506000-00012 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00585.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1089/wound.2015.0645 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/iwj.12600 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Walters J, 2016, Eplasty, 16, e10
  15. 10.1016/j.cpm.2009.08.001 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/1938640012449037 · DOI
  17. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000451891.87020.69 · DOI
  18. Strauss NH, 2012, Wounds, 24, 327
  19. 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.Sup10.S12 · DOI
  20. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000395038.28398.88 · DOI
  21. 10.7547/1020233 · DOI
  22. 10.3109/03008208609017473 · DOI
  23. 10.1155/2013/527957 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/iwj.12028 · DOI
  25. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000482354.01988.b4 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/wrr.12707 · DOI
  27. Wendelken ME, 2011, Wounds, 23, 267
  28. 10.1042/bj1570263 · DOI
  29. 10.1097/00000658-199101000-00013 · DOI
  30. 10.1073/pnas.94.5.1852 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.2337/diacare.24.2.290 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1701 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.06.006 · DOI

Cited by

See all 36

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
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

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.