Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 10;20(7):e0324475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324475

The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: Protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

Shuang Lin 1,2, Lihong Chen 1,2, Dawei Chen 1,2, Yun Gao 1,2, Chun Wang 1,2, Xingwu Ran 1,2,*
Editor: Nan Jiang3
PMCID: PMC12244751  PMID: 40638640

Abstract

Background

The hypobaric and hypoxic characteristic of plateau regions can lead to sustained hypoxia, inadequate tissue perfusion, and an inflammatory response at wounds sites. Topical wound oxygen therapy (TOT) shows potential in elevating transcutaneous oxygen tension, stimulating the production of vascular endothelial growth factor, promoting angiogenesis and tissue remodeling, thereby accelerating wound healing. However, there is a scarcity of research investigating the therapeutic efficacy of TOT for treating chronic refractory wounds in long-term inhabitants of plateau areas. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TOT as a viable treatment option for chronic refractory wounds in individuals residing in high-altitude environments. Positive findings could establish TOT as a valuable and safe complementary strategy for managing such wounds in high-altitude settings.

Methods and analysis

This study is a randomized controlled clinical trial involving 250 patients residing at high altitudes. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either TOT or sham oxygen therapy over a 12-week period, followed by a one-year follow-up. In addition to the experimental interventions, all participants will receive standard care for their chronic wounds. The primary outcome measure is the wound healing rate at the end of the 12-week intervention. Secondary endpoints include the reduction in ulcer area after intervention, the time required for ulcer healing, the recurrence rate of ulcers, the amputation rate, pain levels, and any adverse events.

Trial registration

The trial has been officially registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and assigned the registration number ChiCTR-2400083602.

Background

Chronic wounds can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as diabetic ulcers, infectious lesions, pressure sores, and traumatic injuries [1]. The management of chronic wounds poses a substantial challenge in contemporary medical practice, owing to their multifactorial etiology, extended treatment duration, significant financial burden, and propensity for recurrence and disability [2]. In high-altitude regions, particular attention has been directed towards addressing refractory chronic wounds within the framework of plateau medicine.

Due to the inherent low-pressure and hypoxic conditions of high-altitude plateaus, combined with persistent tissue hypoxia and decreased perfusion at the wound site, chronic wounds in these regions display distinct pathophysiological characteristics compared to those in plains [3]. A retrospective study conducted at the Qinghai Provincial People’s Hospital indicated that among the elderly residing on the plateau, diabetic foot was the leading cause of chronic wounds, accounting for 51.9% of all cases, followed by pressure sores, post-surgical infections, traumatic ulcers, venous ulcers, and arterial ulcers [4]. The microbial profiles and antibiotic resistance patterns associated with infections in plateau wounds markedly differ from those observed in plains [5]. Chronic wounds in high-altitude settings are especially susceptible to complications such as fat necrosis, incisional infection, wound hematomas, and delayed healing [6]. Furthermore, comorbidities such as chronic cardiopulmonary diseases, which are more prevalent in plateau regions, can exacerbate the challenges associated with non-healing wounds.

However, the recommendations for caring for chronic wounds at high altitudes are not substantially distinct from those in plains. Limited literature has been published to investigate interventions that could enhance wound healing in high-altitude environments. In a study, Zhao et al showed that a plateau refractory chronic wound may heal after platelet lysate gel treatment [7]. Standard of care for chronic wounds includes off-loading, anti-infection strategies, debridement, local wound care, negative-pressure wound therapy, and the application of various dressings. Interventions tailored to address the unique pathophysiology of wounds at high altitudes may offer promising avenues for improving wound healing outcomes.

Oxygen serves as a vital component in the wound healing process, assuming a crucial role at each stage. During the inflammatory phase, the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) activates phagocytes to eradicate pathogens, inhibits microbial proliferation, and aid in the clearance of necrotic tissue. In the proliferation phase, oxygen plays a crucial part in collagen synthesis, the formation of the extracellular matrix, and angiogenesis. Localized tissue hypoxia poses a substantial obstacle to efficient wound healing [8]. Our prior studies have demonstrated that hypoxia can result in the dysregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF-2α), leading to delayed wound healing [9]. Factors contributing to chronic tissue hypoxia encompass vasoconstriction induced by inflammation, edema, and pain; compromised limb blood supply due to peripheral artery disease; and heightened oxygen demand caused by wound infection. In plateau regions, the hypobaric and hypoxic conditions may further intensify chronic tissue hypoxia.

Oxygen has been utilized in clinical settings for wound healing since the 1960s. Oxygen supplication to the wound have gained much attention in biomaterial research and development and showed promising therapeutic prospect for wound healing at high altitudes [10,11]. However, there have been a long way for these biomaterials to become in practice. A systematic review indicated that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) can significantly improve wound healing and decrease minor and major amputation in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers [12]. However, several limitations impede the widespread adoption of HBOT, including restricted availability, specific contraindications, and logistical challenges associated with patient transportation.

To address these deficiencies, TOT has been introduced. Preclinical animal studies have demonstrated that this therapy can increase transcutaneous oxygen partial pressure, promote vascular endothelial growth factor expression, enhance angiogenesis and tissue remodeling, and accelerate wound healing [1315]. Clinical controlled trials have shown that TOT significantly improves the ulcer healing rate at 12 weeks (76% vs. 46%, P < 0.001) [16] and reduces the time required for complete wound healing(56 days vs. 93 days) [17]. Results from a global multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial showed that TOT significantly enhances the rate of wound healing (Odds ratio, OR 6, 97.8% confidence interval, CI 1.44–24.93, P = 0.004) [18]. Specifically, while some studies suggest the efficacy of TOT therapy in wound healing, others report inconsistent results. Notably, the studies by Driver et al. and He et al. did not demonstrate any additional benefits of TOT therapy for wound healing compared to moist wound therapy [19,20]. A meta-analysis published in 2024 showed that TOT therapy can significantly increase wound healing (RR 1.77, 95%CI 1.18–2.64, P = 0.005) [21]. However, there remains insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of TOT for chronic refractory wounds in patients residing in high-altitude regions.

The primary objective of this research project was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TOT in managing chronic refractory wounds among patients residing in plateau regions, employing a randomized controlled study design. This study aimed to provide a feasible and safe therapeutic option for addressing the prevalent issue of chronic and refractory wounds in plateau settings.

Methods and design

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of TOT in managing chronic refractory wounds among patients residing in high-altitude regions through randomized controlled trials.

Research design

The present study is designed as a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial and has received approval from the Ethics Committee on Clinical Trial at West China Hospital of Sichuan University (Approval No. 2023(2291)). The study will adhere to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to participation. This trial has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Number: ChiCTR-2400083602). In addition to receiving standard wound care, participants will be randomly allocated to either the TOT group or the sham therapy group. A schematic diagram outlining the design of this clinical trial is presented in Supporting information S1 File.

Study population

The recruitment of patients with chronic refractory wounds from high-altitude regions will be conducted at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. All individuals seeking treatment for chronic wounds in high-altitude areas will undergo a comprehensive and rigorous screening process based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the acquisition of informed consent, eligible patients with chronic refractory wounds from these regions will be enrolled in the study. This trial is scheduled to commence in Oct. 2024 and is expected to conclude by June 2026.

Inclusion criteria.

① Participants must be aged between 18 and 80 years; ② Participants are required to reside in regions with an elevation of no less than 2,500 meters above sea level; ③ Chronic refractory wounds are defined as those that have not healed within a four-week period, including chronic diabetic skin ulcers and venous insufficiency ulcers of the lower limbs; ④ Adequate blood flow is required, as evidenced by an Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI) of 0.6 or higher, or a transcutaneous oxygen tension exceeding 30 mmHg; ⑤ The ulcer area must measure between 1 and 20 cm2.

Exclusion criteria.

A potential subject who fulfills any of the following criteria will be excluded from the trial: ① Limb gangrene; ② Osteomyelitis; ③ Malignant neoplasm; ④ HIV-positive status; ⑤ Severe cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, respiratory, or neurological disorders, as well as other systemic diseases; ⑥ Long-term use of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive agents; ⑦ Pregnant women, or those planning to conceive within three months prior to or following the initiation of treatment, as well as lactating women; ⑧ individuals with psychiatric conditions, significant cognitive impairments, substance abuse disorders (including alcohol and drugs dependencies), and an inability to adhere to the treatment regimen.

Withdrawal of individual subjects

Participants retain the right to voluntarily withdraw from the trial at any time for any reason. Otherwise, it is advised that participants cease their participation under the following circumstances: (1) the emergence of serious adverse events necessitating a temporary interruption in treatment; (2) inadequate progress in ulcer healing, defined by less than a 20% reduction in ulcer size following four weeks of therapy; (3) the onset of a critical clinical infection requiring urgent surgical intervention; and (4) the appearance of indications for major toe or limb amputation in the affected extremities.

Informed consent

The acquisition of written informed consent is mandatory for all participants. In cases where participants are unable to provide consent, it must be obtained from their legally designated representatives.

Sample size calculation

The study conducted by Blackman demonstrated that the 12-week ulcer healing rate in the standard treatment group for diabetic foot ulcers was 42.8%, whereas the wound healing rate in the group receiving TOT was significantly higher at 85.2% [17]. Our previous research documented a wound healing rate of 69% in the standard treatment group for diabetic foot ulcers [22]. Assuming a baseline wound healing rate of 60% in the standard treatment group over a 12-week period, it is hypothesized that the incorporation of TOT would result in a 30% relative improvement in the wound healing rate, i.e., from 60% to 78%. This hypothesis will be evaluated using a two-sided test with a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a statistical power (1-β) of 0.8. Sample size estimation, conducted using PASS 15 software and based on the methodology for comparing two-group proportions in a randomized controlled trial, indicated that each experimental and control group should comprise approximately 100 participants, totaling 250 participants when accounting for an expected dropout rate of approximately 20%.

Randomization and allocation concealment

The eligible participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either receive TOT or sham oxygen therapy. Additionally, all subjects will receive standard wound care as prescribed by their attending physician. The random sequence will be generated by a researcher utilizing R software with the simple randomization method. A designated technician will oversee the sequence numbers and monitor the treatment procedures. Both the attending physician and participants will remain blinded to the specific oxygen therapy protocol.

Interventions

Following randomization, all participants will be assigned to either the treatment group, which will receive TOT, or the control group, which will undergo sham therapy. Additionally, all patients will receive standard medical care for chronic wounds, which include the management of blood sugar, blood pressure, and lipid profiles; antiplatelet aggregation and anticoagulation therapies; infection prevention measures; promotion of physical activity; pressure relief interventions; and debridement procedures. The application of platelet-rich gel and negative pressure wound therapy will also be incorporated. To ensure that all patients received standard wound care, a checklist with the abovementioned contents will be used in the study.

Treatment Group: In addition to receiving standard care for chronic wounds, patients will undergo TOT at their bedside within the ward. This therapy will be delivered using the lower limb wound oxygen therapy device (G00001) supplied by Odie Oxygen Therapy Company, based in Ireland. The treatment involves the delivery of pressurized oxygen, with a pressure range of 0–50 mbar, generated by an oxygen concentrator operating at a flow rate of 10 L/min. Each session will last 90 minutes and will be conducted once daily, five days per week.

Control Group: Patients in the control group received standard wound care and sham therapy. The sham devices looked and operated identically with the active TOT therapy, with the sole difference being the use of ambient air as the gas source instead of an oxygen supply.

Outcomes

Primary outcomes.

The wound healing rate at 12 weeks: the proportion of participants achieving complete wound healing, defined as full epithelialization of the wound within a 12-week timeframe.

Secondary outcome.

  1. Rate of ulcer area reduction: percent change in wound size after 12 weeks of treatment

  2. Time to ulcer healing: duration until complete wound closure

  3. One-year ulcer recurrence rate: proportion of ulcers that recur within one-year post-healing

  4. Amputation rate at 12 weeks: incidence of amputation within the first 12 weeks

  5. VAS score: Visual analogue scale for pain assessment

  6. Wound-QoL: Questionnaire assessing quality of life in patients with chronic wounds

Follow-up

Patients will be randomly allocated to either the treatment group or the control group and will receive the respective interventions until complete wound healing occurs or for a maximum duration of 12 weeks. Digital photography will be employed to systematically document images on a weekly basis. The researchers will determine whether the outcomes were reached. Because of the objective feature, the outcome assessment for wound healing will not be blinded or centralized. The Image J software will be utilized to quantitatively measure the area of the foot ulcer during each debridement and dressing change procedure. The total follow-up period will span one year, with evaluations conducted at 4-, 8-, 12-, 24-, and 52-weeks post-randomization to assess wound healing, ulcer recurrence, and the incidence of amputation. The items to be measured and the time window of data collection are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. The schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments.

Fig 1

Adverse events

The incidence of all adverse events, whether reported by participants or observed by the research investigator, will be meticulously documented in accordance with the study protocol. Appropriate interventions will be promptly implemented in response to the severity of each adverse event. In the case of serious adverse events, it is imperative to notify both the expert committee and the ethics committee within 24 hours.

Data collection and management

The principal investigator (PI) is responsible for the design, implementation and management of the study. Other researchers are tasked with clinical diagnosis, participant screening, obtaining informed consent, administering interventions, collecting clinical samples, conducting follow-up, and ensuring data entry. A researcher will use a case report form (CRF) to collect data. A clinical trial associate will verify whether the data filled in the CRF are complete and accurate. All the personal information of subjects collected during this clinical trial will be remained strictly confidential. The data collected in the study will be stored in the hospital. The primary investigator has the access to the final dataset. The dataset without identifiable information will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Statistical analysis

R software will be utilized to conduct statistical analyses. The multiple imputation approach will be utilized to address missing data. Statistical analysis will be conducted using an intention-to-treat approach. Specifically, the chi-square test will be utilized to evaluate the primary outcome measure, namely the wound healing rate at 12 weeks. For sparse data, Fisher’s exact test will be used. Logistic regression analysis will be conducted to investigate potential confounding factors that may influence wound healing. Confounding factors, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, ulcer categories, wound area, and infection status, will be adjusted to ensure the reliability of the findings. Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to age, wound categories, and wound area. The reduction rate of ulcer area and wound healing time at 12 weeks were evaluated using either the independent t-test or the Mann-Whitney, contingent upon meeting the assumptions for parametric analysis. Furthermore, the chi-square test will be applied to assess the ulcer recurrence rate and the amputation rate. Kaplan-Meire survival analysis will be performed to compare wound healing between the two groups, with the log-rank test used for statistical comparison. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were employed to evaluate the association between TOT therapy and wound healing. Multivariable models were adjusted for covariates such as age, sex, history of diabetes, ulcer categories, wound area, and infection status. A significance level of P < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

Patient and public involvement

The formulation of the research question, the determination of outcome measures, and the design of the protocol were conducted without the involvement of patients or members of the general public.

Discussion

Chronic wounds represent a substantial public health challenge on a global scale. The high-altitude environment exacerbates the complexity of the wound healing process. In order to improve wound healing outcomes, various interventions are currently being developed and evaluated in clinical settings. This trial has the potential to provide definite evidence that TOT is an efficacious and safe therapeutic option for patients with chronic wounds in high-altitude regions.

In fact, the efficacy of TOT in promoting the healing of diabetic foot ulcers has been substantiated by a randomized clinical trial [18]. A systematic review and meta-analysis further support these findings, indicating that TOT is a viable treatment option for chronic Wagner 1 or 2 diabetic foot ulcers in the absence of infection and ischemia, with a risk ratio of 1.59 (95%CI 1.07–2.37; p = 0.021) [23]. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that previous studies have predominantly focused on the effectiveness of this therapy in mild cases. To date, no research has specifically examined its application in high-altitude populations. The results of this trial may provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of TOT in such settings.

In this study, the standard of care for chronic wounds is established by the attending physicians and is not governed by a standardized protocol. This methodology reflects actual clinical practice. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the results can be extrapolated to the broader Chinese population inhabiting high-altitude regions. However, it should be emphasized that the implementation of TOT therapy requires the availability of TOT device, which may pose challenges in resource-limited settings. In fact, the procedure for TOT therapy is relatively straightforward and can be effectively performed by healthcare practitioners following minimal training. Nevertheless, the single-center design of this study may impose limitations on its external validity. Further multi-center studies could potentially strengthen the generalizability and reliability of these findings. Of course, it should be noted that it may be a challenge to recruit enough subjects due to the lower population density at high altitudes.

In conclusion, the results of this trial will provide further evidence to substantiate the efficacy of TOT in the treatment of chronic wounds in high-altitude regions. Further studies may be conducted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of TOT therapy and assess its applicability across diverse wound categories.

Trial status

This protocol constitutes the preliminary version, which was officially approved on March 13, 2024. Recruitment of participants is scheduled to commence in October 2024. The study is expected to reach its conclusion in June 2026. The findings from this study will be disseminated through publication in relevant, peer-reviewed scientific journals by the research team. In addition, the research team will actively communicate the findings of this study with healthcare providers and policymakers at academic conferences.

Supporting information

S1 File. Flowchart of the Clinical Trial.

(PDF)

pone.0324475.s001.pdf (25.5KB, pdf)
S2 File. SPIRIT Checklist for Trials.

(DOCX)

pone.0324475.s002.docx (47.3KB, docx)
S3 File. Study protocol approved by your ethics committee.

(PDF)

pone.0324475.s003.pdf (805.9KB, pdf)
S4 File. Study protocol translated.

(PDF)

pone.0324475.s004.pdf (527.1KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Funding Statement

XR received the funding from the Health Commission of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 23LCYJ 042), 1.3.5 Project of Center for High Altitude Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Grant No. GYYX 24002), 1.3.5 Project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital of Sichuan University (Grant No. ZYGD24005), Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2024 YFFK0290), and Science and Technology Bureau of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 24ZDYF0679). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Falanga V, Isseroff RR, Soulika AM, Romanelli M, Margolis D, Kapp S, et al. Chronic wounds. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):50. doi: 10.1038/s41572-022-00377-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cheng B, Jiang Y, Fu X, Hao D, Liu H, Liu Y, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and clinical analyses of chronic cutaneous wounds of inpatients in China: Prevention and control. Wound Repair Regen. 2020;28(5):623–30. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12825 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.He S, Yan C, Gang QJ, Jia CX, Med Rev Ha J. Pathological changes and characteristics of difficult-to-heal wounds in plateau areas. Med Rev. 2022;28:2746–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Qi W, Zhuo M, Tian Y, Dawa Z, Ma Z, An Y a n. Epidemiological investigation and analysis of elderly patients with chronic and difficult-to-heal wounds in plateau areas. Chin J Injury Repair and Wound Healing (Electronic Edition). 2021;16:6. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yu X, Ding S, He C, Feng D, Xiao J, Chen H. Analysis of distribution characteristics and drug resistance of common cultured bacteria from wounds of patients in burn department under high altitude hypoxia environment. Int J Lab Med. 2022;43:2841–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lian G, Chen Y, Chen X. A series of studies on the prevention and treatment of plateau diseases and disasters in the army (7) medical geographical characteristics and prevention and treatment measures of poor wound healing in plateau areas. People’s Military Surgeon. 2019;62(1):93–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhao Q, Wang H, Wang H, Zhang J, Xing Y. Plateau refractory wounds treated with platelet lysate gel: a case report. Med J PUMCH. 2024;15(6):1408–12. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2024-0195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gottrup F, Dissemond J, Baines C, Frykberg R, Jensen PØ, Kot J, et al. Use of oxygen therapies in wound healing. J Wound Care. 2017;26(Sup5):S1–43. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.Sup5.S1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen L, Gao Y, Li Y, Wang C, Chen D, Gao Y, et al. Severe intermittent hypoxia modulates the macrophage phenotype and impairs wound healing through downregulation of HIF-2α. Nat Sci Sleep. 2022;14:1511–20. doi: 10.2147/NSS.S382275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ai C, Bai J, Ye Q, Niu S, Li Y, Li P, et al. Accelerating healing at high altitudes: Oxygen and bFGF delivery through nanoparticle-loaded gel dressings. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024;179:117247. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lei R, Gu M, Li J, Wang W, Yu Q, Ali R, et al. lipoic acid/trometamol assembled hydrogel as injectable bandage for hypoxic wound healing at high altitude. Chem Eng J. 2024;489:151499. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Oley MH, Oley MC, Kepel BJ, Faruk M, Wagiu AMJ, Sukarno I, et al. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot ulcers based on wagner grading: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(3):e5692. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gordillo GM, Roy S, Khanna S, Schlanger R, Khandelwal S, Phillips G, et al. Topical oxygen therapy induces vascular endothelial growth factor expression and improves closure of clinically presented chronic wounds. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2008;35(8):957–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.04934.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fries RB, Wallace WA, Roy S, Kuppusamy P, Bergdall V, Gordillo GM, et al. Dermal excisional wound healing in pigs following treatment with topically applied pure oxygen. Mutat Res. 2005;579(1–2):172–81. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.02.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Asmis R, Qiao M, Zhao Q. Low flow oxygenation of full-excisional skin wounds on diabetic mice improves wound healing by accelerating wound closure and reepithelialization. Int Wound J. 2010;7(5):349–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00716.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tawfick W, Sultan S. Does topical wound oxygen (TWO2) offer an improved outcome over conventional compression dressings (CCD) in the management of refractory venous ulcers (RVU)? A parallel observational comparative study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38(1):125–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.03.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Blackman E, Moore C, Hyatt J, Railton R, Frye C. Topical wound oxygen therapy in the treatment of severe diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective controlled study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2010;56(6):24–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Frykberg RG, Franks PJ, Edmonds M, Brantley JN, Téot L, Wild T, et al. A multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of cyclical Topical Wound Oxygen (TWO2) therapy in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: the TWO2 study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(3):616–24. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Driver VR, Reyzelman A, Kawalec J, French M. A prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled trial comparing transdermal continuous oxygen delivery to moist wound therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2017;63(4):12–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.He S, Liang C, Yi C, Wu M. Therapeutic effect of continuous diffusion of oxygen therapy combined with traditional moist wound dressing therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;174:108743. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Putri IL, Alyssa A, Aisyah IF, Permatasari AAIY, Pramanasari R, Wungu CDK. The efficacy of topical oxygen therapy for wound healing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Int Wound J. 2024;21(7):e14960. doi: 10.1111/iwj.14960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li L, Chen D, Wang C, Yuan N, Wang Y, He L, et al. Autologous platelet-rich gel for treatment of diabetic chronic refractory cutaneous ulcers: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23(4):495–505. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carter MJ, Frykberg RG, Oropallo A, Sen CK, Armstrong DG, Nair HKR, et al. Efficacy of topical wound oxygen therapy in healing chronic diabetic foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(4):177–86. doi: 10.1089/wound.2022.0041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nan Jiang

PONE-D-25-21928The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ran,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nan Jiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

Study Protocol

Generally:

This study is well-structured and scientifically sound, incorporating an appropriate methodology to assess TOT in high-altitude wound care. To strengthen its impact, additional consideration of alternative treatments, environmental confounders, accessibility concerns, and subgroup analyses is recommended.

Abstract:

Strengths:

The title is clear and directly conveys the study’s focus. The abstract concisely summarizes the rationale, methodology, and expected impact, making it accessible to readers.

Comments/Recommendations:

The abstract could briefly highlight potential limitations to set appropriate expectations for the study's findings.

Consider incorporating a sentence acknowledging challenges related to study execution, such as patient adherence or environmental variability.

see attached file

Reviewer #2: This study addresses an important and underexplored clinical problem — the management of chronic refractory wounds in high-altitude populations using topical wound oxygen therapy (TOT). The proposed randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled design is methodologically robust, and the outcomes chosen are relevant and clinically significant. However, several key areas require revision to improve the protocol's scientific rigor, reproducibility, and applicability:

1. Wound Type Stratification:

The inclusion of multiple chronic wound types (e.g., diabetic foot ulcers, venous ulcers) without subgroup stratification or analysis is a significant limitation. Different wound etiologies have distinct pathophysiology and may respond differently to oxygen therapy. The authors should consider stratified randomization or include planned subgroup analyses.

2. Standard of Care Consistency:

"Standard wound care" is left to physician discretion without a defined protocol. This introduces variability and may affect the internal validity of the study. A minimum standard wound care protocol should be outlined (e.g., dressing selection, debridement practices, offloading strategies) to ensure consistency across groups.

3. Blinding of Sham Therapy:

The manuscript lacks detail on how sham oxygen therapy (ambient air) will be made indistinguishable from the active TOT, which could compromise blinding. The authors should clarify how the control setup will simulate the sensory experience of TOT (e.g., pressure, temperature, sound).

4. Patient-Centered Outcomes Missing:

Pain and quality of life are briefly mentioned but not evaluated using standardized tools. These outcomes are crucial in chronic wound studies. The authors are encouraged to incorporate validated instruments such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the EQ-5D or Wound-QoL for quality of life.

5. Literature Review Imbalance:

The background heavily emphasizes positive studies supporting TOT, with little discussion of conflicting or negative findings. A more balanced review of current literature is necessary to frame the rationale objectively.

6. Generalizability and Limitations:

While the setting is appropriate for the study goals, the single-center design limits broader applicability. This should be acknowledged explicitly in the discussion, with a recommendation for future multi-center research.

7. Microbiological Context:

Given the noted differences in microbial profiles in high-altitude wounds, the protocol could be strengthened by including infection tracking or microbial analysis as exploratory endpoints.

8. Figures and Visuals:

Figures 1 and 2 are informative but visually dense. Consider simplifying and clarifying their design for better comprehension.

In conclusion, this is a promising and relevant study. With moderate revisions addressing the points above, it can make a valuable contribution to wound care research in resource-limited, high-altitude environments.

Recommendation: Revision Required Before Acceptance

Reviewer #3: In The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial, Lin et al. describe a well thought out protocol for a clinical evaluation for TOT therapy. The authors do a good job explaining the rationale and need for the study. The experimental design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and evaluation plan seem appropriate for the study. Overall, this protocol is appropriate for publication with minor revisions.

Background

- Briefly introduce the basic mechanism of TOT therapy

Methods

- Briefly describe the rationale behind therapy regimen. I.e. is the timing and O2 concentration based upon animal trials? Are there any considerations for implementing in human patients?

Reviewer #4: The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 250 residents living at high altitudes is to assess the efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy (TOT) for treating chronic refractory wounds. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either TOT or sham oxygen therapy over a 12-week period, followed by a one-year follow-up. The primary endpoint is the wound healing rate at the end of the 12-week intervention. Secondary outcomes include reduction in ulcer area, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence rate, amputation rate, pain levels, and the incidence of adverse events. If proven effective, TOT could serve as a valuable and safe adjunctive treatment for managing chronic wounds in high-altitude settings. The protocol covers all key aspects of study design, randomization, and statistical issues; however, there are several major statistical concerns about the current manuscript.

Statistical critiques:

1. Although the authors discuss power analysis and sample size estimation, they should explicitly clarify the following: (1) the statistical test used to determine the required sample size, (2) whether a one-sided or two-sided test was applied, and (3) that the reported 30% improvement refers to a relative, not absolute, increase in the wound healing rate. Specifically, the authors should state: “Assuming a baseline wound healing rate of 60% in the standard treatment group over a 12-week period, it is hypothesized that the addition of TOT will result in a 30% relative improvement in healing, i.e., 60% vs. 78%.”

2. Although the manuscript discusses randomization, the authors should explicitly specify the method used—for example, simple randomization (not recommended) or stratified permuted block randomization (highly recommended). If stratified permuted block randomization is chosen, the authors should clearly detail the stratification factor(s), block size, and other relevant parameters in the manuscript.

3. The statistical analysis plan covers the major outcomes but lacks essential methodological clarity and precision. While using the chi-square test for comparing wound healing rates is reasonable, the authors should clarify whether assumptions will be assessed and whether Fisher’s exact test will be used for sparse data. The proposed use of logistic regression to adjust for confounders is appropriate, but the model’s covariates, selection criteria, and diagnostics are not specified. Additionally, time-to-healing is better analyzed with survival methods rather than the proposed t-test, and the mention of Kaplan-Meier analysis is vague—for example, there is no indication of what time-to-event outcome is being evaluated or whether log-rank tests or Cox models will be used.

4. In summary, several important elements are missing from the current statistical analysis plan. There is no mention of how missing data will be addressed (a formal multiple imputation approach is recommended), whether analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle, or how multiple testing across secondary endpoints will be controlled (either Bonferroni adjustment or false discovery rate [FDR] should be applied). The t-tests for ulcer area and healing time assume no severe skewness (skewness < 1), which should be assessed; otherwise, non-parametric methods such as the Wilcoxon rank-sum test should be used. To improve the rigor of the plan, the authors should clarify test assumptions, specify covariates, define outcomes more precisely, and incorporate appropriate strategies for handling missing data and multiplicity.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Abdulrahman Abdullah Almalki

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: The efficacy and safety of TOT.pdf

pone.0324475.s005.pdf (131.2KB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-21928 Allen review.docx

pone.0324475.s006.docx (17.6KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 10;20(7):e0324475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324475.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jun 2025

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

We extend our gratitude to the Editor and Reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback. We highly appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our manuscript following the journal’s requirements. In response, we have thoroughly addressed all the comments raised by the Journal. Additionally, our detailed point-by-point replies to the Reviewers’ comments are provided in the Response to Reviewers file. Tracked changes are provided in the Revised Manuscript.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Xingwu Ran

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0324475.s007.docx (37.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nan Jiang

PONE-D-25-21928R1The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ran,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nan Jiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: This is a resubmission of a protocol I previously reviewed (PONE-D-25-21928). The authors have addressed the major concerns raised in the initial review, particularly regarding blinding clarification, co-intervention standardization, and ethical transparency. The revised protocol is clearer and more robust overall.

The study protocol presents a novel and clinically significant investigation into the use of topical wound oxygen therapy (TOT) for chronic refractory wounds in high-altitude populations. The rationale is well-articulated, supported by both pathophysiological and epidemiological arguments specific to plateau environments, where wound healing is uniquely compromised due to hypoxia and limited perfusion.

The research design is strong, utilizing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled approach with adequate sample size justification and meaningful primary and secondary endpoints. The use of a sham-controlled group and consistent standard care protocols (including wound off-loading, debridement, and infection control) reflects good clinical trial standards. The methodology is reproducible and clearly described.

Minor suggestions include:

Enhancing standardization in how “standard wound care” will be monitored or audited across patients.

Clarifying if outcome adjudicators for wound healing will be blinded or centralized.

Confirming the data repository platform intended for post-trial public data availability.

This trial, once completed, could significantly contribute to the evidence base for wound care in geographically and physiologically challenging environments. The planned 1-year follow-up is a strength and will support long-term safety and efficacy analysis.

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded well to the statistical issues raised in the previous review. There is no further statistical concern about this revised manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Abdulrahman Almalki

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jul 10;20(7):e0324475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324475.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


18 Jun 2025

Dear editor,

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their valuable time and constructive feedback. We have reviewed the reference list and we are sure that there were no papers that have been retracted. And we also make some revisions to ensure it is complete and correct. The detailed point-by-point replies to the Reviewers’ comments are provided below.

Reviewer #2:

Minor suggestions include:

Enhancing standardization in how “standard wound care” will be monitored or audited across patients.

Clarifying if outcome adjudicators for wound healing will be blinded or centralized.

Confirming the data repository platform intended for post-trial public data availability.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made corresponding revisions. Because the outcomes of wound healing were objective, the outcome adjudicators for wound healing will not be blinded or centralized. The data collected in the study will be stored in the hospital. The dataset will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

“To ensure that all patients received standard wound care, a checklist with the abovementioned contents will be used in the study.”

“The researchers will determine whether the outcomes were reached. Because of the objective feature, the outcome assessment for wound healing will not be blinded or centralized.”

“The data collected in the study will be stored in the hospital. The primary investigator has the access to the final dataset. The dataset without identifiable information will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.”

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded well to the statistical issues raised in the previous review. There is no further statistical concern about this revised manuscript.

Response: Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0324475.s008.docx (27.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Nan Jiang

The efficacy and safety of topical wound oxygen therapy for chronic refractory wounds at high altitude: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

PONE-D-25-21928R2

Dear Dr. Ran,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nan Jiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded well to the statistical issues raised in the previous review. There is no further statistical concern about this revised manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Nan Jiang

PONE-D-25-21928R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ran,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nan Jiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Flowchart of the Clinical Trial.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324475.s001.pdf (25.5KB, pdf)
    S2 File. SPIRIT Checklist for Trials.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0324475.s002.docx (47.3KB, docx)
    S3 File. Study protocol approved by your ethics committee.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324475.s003.pdf (805.9KB, pdf)
    S4 File. Study protocol translated.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324475.s004.pdf (527.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: The efficacy and safety of TOT.pdf

    pone.0324475.s005.pdf (131.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-21928 Allen review.docx

    pone.0324475.s006.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0324475.s007.docx (37.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0324475.s008.docx (27.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES