Ozone + usual care vs sham ozone + usual care: Ulcer healing
Ozone + usual care showed no clear difference in number of ulcers healed compared with sham ozone + usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ozone + usual care vs sham ozone + usual care Number of ulcers healed · patients with treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes Ozone + usual care showed no clear difference in number of ulcers healed compared with sham ozone + usual care (low certainty). Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.69 [0.9, 3.17] | 2 studies · 111 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ozone therapy for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.