Placental-derived products added to standard care raised 12-week closure of diabetic foot ulcers

Design

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomised trials (PROSPERO registered)

Population

944 adults with active diabetic foot ulcers across nine standard-care-controlled comparisons

Primary outcome

Complete wound closure at 12 weeks

Effect

59.0% vs 35.8%; RR 1.70 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.20); I-squared 51.9%; prediction interval 0.93 to 3.11

This registered meta-analysis asked a narrow question: do placental, amniotic or cord-derived products added to standard care improve complete closure of a diabetic foot ulcer at 12 weeks? Of 474 records, 14 randomised articles were kept, and nine standard-care-controlled comparisons with 944 participants gave usable 12-week data.

Closure occurred in 298 of 505 treated participants (59.0%) and 157 of 439 controls (35.8%), a risk ratio of 1.70 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.20). The result held in leave-one-out analyses (1.59 to 1.81) and after excluding the one high-risk-of-bias trial (1.73). Certainty was graded moderate, lowered once for inconsistency.

Heterogeneity was moderate (I-squared 51.9%) and the prediction interval ran from 0.93 to 3.11, so a new trial of a given product could well show no benefit. Offloading, debridement, infection control and perfusion assessment remain the foundation. For Indian clinics, cost and availability will limit use, and the review does not address either.

• Optimise offloading, debridement, infection control and perfusion before considering any adjunct.
• Where a placental product is used, record wound size at baseline and at 12 weeks to judge response.
• Ask for product-specific trial evidence rather than assuming the class result applies to every product.
• Check the cost and who pays before starting; none is reported here.
• Reassess if the ulcer has not shrunk by 4 weeks.

Why it matters

It gives a moderate-certainty estimate for a class of products that clinics buy widely, while showing how uneven the underlying trials are.

Don't overread it

The pooled effect is an average across different products; the wide prediction interval means it may not apply to a specific product or setting.

The statistics, in plain English

A risk ratio of 1.70 means closure was about 70% more likely, or 59% against 36% in absolute terms. The prediction interval (0.93 to 3.11) is the range a future trial might fall in, and because it crosses 1, an individual product in a new setting might not help. An I-squared of about 52% means the trials differed more than chance alone would explain.

Read the rest in the app

You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

Get Daily Doctor — free

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.