The effect of topical phenytoin on healing in diabetic foot ulcers: a randomized controlled trial1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of topical phenytoin on healing in diabetic foot ulcers. A randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted. METHODS: A phenytoin dressing and a control dressing were manufactured. Individuals who were ≥ 18 years of age with peripheral neuropathy, an ankle brachial pressure index > 0.5 and a diabetic foot ulcer ≥ 4 weeks' duration were independently randomized to the phenytoin group (31 participants) or the control group (34 participants). Participants with renal disease, ankle brachial pressure index < 0.5, necrosis or osteomyelitis were excluded. Subjects received standard wound care and dressing application. Primary endpoint analysis (diabetic foot ulcer closed or not at 16 weeks) was calculated by survival analysis. RESULTS: Participants (n = 65, 52 with Type 2 diabetes) were treated for a maximum of 16 weeks. Sixty per cent of the diabetic foot ulcers closed overall (18 in the phenytoin group, 20 in the control group) with no statistically significant differences in complete healing or in diabetic foot ulcer area over time between the two groups. At 24-weeks follow-up, one diabetic foot ulcer had recurred. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in diabetic foot ulcer closure rates or in diabetic foot ulcer area over time between the two groups. This study does not support the use of phenytoin in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".