Oral nutritional supplements vs placebo: Ulcer healing
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements vs placebo Ulcer healing (absolute change in individual parameters of ulcer dimensions over time) · people with diabetes and foot ulcers The review found no eligible studies for this question. Nutritional interventions for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements vs placebo Ulcer healing (proportion of ulcers healed) · people with diabetes and foot ulcers It is very uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1… changes ulcer healing (proportion of ulcers healed) compared with placebo (very low certainty). Nutritional interventions for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.8 [0.42, 1.53] | 1 study · 53 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutritional interventions for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2020 · 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.