Table 5.
Included meta- analyses results
| SR with MA | Studies included | Variables analyzed | Result | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gregor S, et al. 2008 [35] |
Etoz et al. 2007 [45] Mc Callon, 2000 [42] |
Change in wound size |
SMD(95% CI): −1.3(−2.07 to −0.54) In favor of NPWT |
High |
| Zhang J, et al 2014 [37] |
Armstrong, et al. 2005 [46] Blume et al. 2008 [8] Nain et al.2001 [55] |
Proportion of ulcer healing |
(42.8% vs. 31.96%; rr,1.52; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.89; p < 0.001) In favor of NPWT |
Low |
|
Eginton et al. 2003 [41] Etoz et al. 2004 [45] Mc Callon et al. 2000 [42] Nain et al.2001 [55] |
Ulcer area reduction |
SMD, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.41to 1.37; p = 0.003 In favor of NPWT |
||
|
Mc Callon et al. 2000 [42] Sepulveda et al. 2009 [48] |
Time to ulcer healing |
(standardized mean difference, −1.10; 95% CI, −1.83 to −0.37; p = 0.003). In favor of NPWT |
||
|
Armstrong et al. 2005 [46] Blume et al. 2008 [8] |
Adverse events, including edema, pain, bleeding, and localized wound infection. |
(relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.89; p = 0.683) No significant difference |
||
| Wang R, 2015 [36] | 20 studies but did not specified Which studies included in meta-analysis | proportion of diabetic foot ulcer healing |
OR(95% CI; 0.36(0.24–0.54) In favor of NPWT |
Critical low |
| 15 studies but did not specified Which studies included in meta-analysis | Time to wound closure |
standard mean difference and 95% confidence interval, −18 [−29, −6.6] In favor of NPWT |
||
| 15 studies but did not specified Which studies included in meta-analysis | Decrement in ulcer area |
standard mean difference and 95% confidence interval, −18 [−29, −6.7] In favor of NPWT |
||
| Liu, Si, 2017 [18] |
Armstrong et al. 2005 [46] Blume et al. 2008 [8] Nain et al. 2001 [55] Vaidhya et al. [59] Ravari et al. [60] |
Complete healing |
RR; 1.48 (95% CI: 1.24–1.76, P < 0.0001) In favor of NPWT |
High |
|
Mc Callon et al.2000 [42] Karatepe et al. 2004 [37] |
Time to Complete healing |
(mean difference: −8.07, 95% CI: −13.70– −2.45, P = 0.005) In favor of NPWT |
||
|
Nain et al.,2001 [55] Ravari et al.,2013 [60] Mc Callon et al., 2000 [42] Eginton et al., 2003 [41] Sun and sun et al., 2007 [58] Sajid et al., 2015 [61] |
Reduction of ulcer size |
95% CI: 8.50–15.86, P < 0.0001 In favor of NPWT |
||
|
Armstrong et al. 2005 [46] Blume et al., 2008 [8] Sepulveda et al., 2009 [48] |
Treatment related Adverse events |
95% CI: 0.66–1.89, P = 0.68) No significant diference |
SR systematic review, MA meta-analysis