Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 25%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 50%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Antimicrobial dressings vs non‐antimicrobial dressings

Proportion of wounds healed · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

Antimicrobial dressings may leads to higher proportion of wounds healed Up to 24 weeks' compared with non‐antimicrobial dressings (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.28 [1.12, 1.45]
5 studies · 945 participants
Low

Antimicrobial dressings vs non‐antimicrobial dressings

Incidence of infection Up to 24 weeks' · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

It is very uncertain whether antimicrobial dressings changes incidence of infection Up to 24 weeks' compared with non‐antimicrobial dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.34 [0.04, 3.1]
2 studies · 173 participants
Very low

Antimicrobial dressings vs non‐antimicrobial dressings

Resolution of infection · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Antimicrobial dressings vs non‐antimicrobial dressings

Adverse events Up to 24 weeks' · people with diabetes and foot ulcers

It is very uncertain whether antimicrobial dressings changes adverse events Up to 24 weeks' compared with non‐antimicrobial dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.96 [0.62, 1.48]
1 study · 134 participants
Very low