Photodynamic therapy for infected foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ulceration of the feet in patients with diabetes is a frequent complication that increases morbidity, mortality, hospitalization, treatment costs, and non-traumatic amputations. OBJECTIVE: To present a systematic review of the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus and infected foot ulcers using photodynamic therapy. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was performed in the postgraduate program in nursing at the Universidade da Integração Internacional da Lusofonia Afro-Brasileira, Ceará, Brazil. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and LILACS databases were screened. The methodological quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence of each study were assessed. Review Manager was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies were included. They highlighted significantly better outcomes in patient groups treated with photodynamic therapy than those in the control groups that were treated with topical collagenase and chloramphenicol (P = 0.036), absorbent (P < 0.001), or dry covers (P = 0.002). Significant improvements were noted in terms of the microbial load in the ulcers and tissue repair, with a reported reduction in the need for amputation by up to 35 times. Photodynamic therapy resulted in significantly better outcomes between the experimental and control groups (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Photodynamic therapy is significantly more effective in treating infected foot ulcers than standard therapies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) - CRD42020214187, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=214187.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".