Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis

Fazal Rahim; Xie Yan; Jawad Ali Shah; Nida Bibi; Zafar Ullah Khan; Shah Nawaz; Yao Ming

doi:10.12688/f1000research.121712.2

Home Browse Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Revised

Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Fazal Rahim ¹, Xie Yan^2,3, Jawad Ali Shah⁴, [...] Nida Bibi⁵, Zafar Ullah Khan⁶, Shah Nawaz⁷, Yao Ming¹

Fazal Rahim ¹, Xie Yan^2,3, [...] Jawad Ali Shah⁴, Nida Bibi⁵, Zafar Ullah Khan⁶, Shah Nawaz⁷, Yao Ming¹

PUBLISHED 10 Mar 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Burn and Plastic Surgery department, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China
² School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of technology, Brisbane, Australia., Brisbane, 4072, Australia
³ Tissue Organ Bank & Tissue Engineering Center, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China
⁴ Laboratory of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaption and Evolutionary Ecology, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650500, China
⁵ Department of zoology, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal 18000, Pakistan., Dir upper, 18000, Pakistan
⁶ The second affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University 310058, P.R China, Zhejiang, China
⁷ Department of infectious diseases, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China

Fazal Rahim
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Xie Yan
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Jawad Ali Shah
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Nida Bibi
Roles: Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Zafar Ullah Khan
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization

Shah Nawaz
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Yao Ming
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a life-threatening ailment caused by diabetes. Several growth factors, as well as their various combinations, have shown promising effect in aiding diabetic foot ulcer. However, contradictory or paradoxical results are often available, and debates about this issue are ongoing. Therefore, a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and placebo in healing diabetic foot ulcers.
Methods: The database search included relevant English literature from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, Elsevier, and EMBASE that was published between 2009 and 2021. Inclusion criteria included type 1 and 2 diabetic patients with foot wounds focusing on complete healing rate. Exclusion criteria included combined therapy, non-human studies, reviews, and protocols. To assess the quality of each study, biases regarding random sequence generation, allocation concealment, participant and personnel blinding, outcome assessment blinding and incomplete outcome data were thoroughly identified.
Results: Eight randomized control trials comprising 620 patients (337 in EGF group, 283 in placebo group), were included in this meta-analysis. EGF achieved a significantly higher complete healing rate than placebo after four weeks of treatment, with relative risk (RR): 3.04 (0.50, 18.44) and heterogeneity (Chi² = 6.46, df = 2 (P = 0.04) I² = 69 %). Notably, the healing frequency in the placebo group was 17%, whereas the healing frequency in the epidermal growth factor group was 34%. Likewise, after eight weeks of treatment, the relative risk and heterogeneity were RR: 2.59 (1.42, 4.72) and (Chi² =7.92, df= 4 (p= 0.09): I²= 49%), respectively. Moreover, the risk ratio at 12 weeks was RR: 1.01 (0.42, 2.46), and heterogeneity was (Chi² =8.55, df= 2 (p= 0.01): I²= 77%).
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that EGF significantly promotes wound healing, and could be recommended as an effective and safe treatment for DFUs.

Keywords

Diabetic foot ulcer, epidermal growth factor, Placebo, Meta-analysis

Corresponding author: Fazal Rahim

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by key Research & development projects of Ningxia Hui Autonomous region at Ningxia medical university 2019, under the Grant number: 2019BEG03069.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Rahim F et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Rahim F, Yan X, Shah JA et al. Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 11:773 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.2) First published: 11 Jul 2022, 11:773 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.1) Latest published: 10 Mar 2023, 11:773 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have made several changes in our this version. also it was revised thoroughly for grammatical mistakes.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Diabetes is a metabolic syndrome, which may be due to the reduced insulin secretion, or defects in insulin function, leading to glucose deficiency, resulting in hyperglycemia.¹ Following this, according to international diabetes federation 2017,² only diabetes was responsible for four million fatalities globally. As a results, 382 million individuals were diagnosed with diabetes in 2013,³ 415 million in 2015,⁴ 425 million in 2017,² 463 million in 2019, and is projected to effect 578 million people in 2030.⁵ Consequently, the average growth rate in diabetes patients from 2013 to 2030 is more than 52%. Increasing tendency of morbidity and mortality is seen in patients with type 2 diabetes, which frequently leads to premature death.¹

The three main types of diabetes are type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the onset of T2DM is more insidious accounting for roughly 90% of all cases.⁶ Excessive thirst, hunger, weariness, sluggishness, weight loss in type one or progressive weight gain in type two, blurred vision, and passing more urine than normal are the most typical symptoms of diabetes. Hyperglycemia, ketoacidosis, and diabetic coma are the most prevalent acute complications of diabetes.⁵ In addition, ageing, greater urbanization, genetics, and an obesogenic profile are the primary causes of diabetes.⁷ People with a family history of diabetes, for example, have a 25% increased chance of inheriting type 2 diabetes from their parents.⁸ Similarly, monozygotic twins are 90% more likely than heterozygotic twins to acquire T2DM later in life. Moreover, the incidence rates of T1D are also rising, contributing to the increase in diabetes prevalence worldwide.⁹ However, in depth knowledge for the specific cause of this rise is of paramount importance.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) anticipations, diabetic foot ulcers would affect more than 19% of the world’s adult population by 2030.¹⁰ Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are wounds in the dermis (the skin’s deep blood vessels and collagen inner layer) that appear below the ankles of diabetic patients.¹¹ It is estimated that DFUs affect 9.1 to 26.1 million diabetic patients each year across the globe.¹² Diabetic foot ulcers were found to be prevalent in 6.3% of the world’s population, with North America (13%) having the highest prevalence and Oceania having the lowest (3%). In Asia, Europe, and Africa, the prevalence was 5.5%, 5.1%, and 7.2%, respectively.¹³ Indeed, diabetes mellitus is one of the most common causes of non-traumatic lower extremity amputation. Approximately 20% of diabetic foot infections that are mild to severe result in amputation.¹⁴ The risk of deaths in DFU individuals dramatically raised by 2.5 times when compared to non-DFU patients.²^,¹² Insufficient blood circulation due to malfunction of circulatory system significantly increase the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers. Therefore, to treat DFU patients more effectively, it is extremely important to develop a cutting-edge treatment approach.

Several growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor (EGF), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, have showed promise in accelerating ulcer healing in various combinations.¹⁵^–¹⁷ Inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling are the three stages of wound healing, each of which necessitates the coordination and integration of delicate and complicated biological activities. Chemotaxis, cell proliferation, extracellular matrix deposition, angiogenesis, and tissue reconstruction are all stimulated by the growth factors involved in those biological activities. Several published literature have evaluated the curative effect of topical EGF and placebo on healing diabetic foot ulcers, but there are always contradictions in the evidence to distinguish the true therapeutic effect and safety issues of EGF and placebo in the treatment of DFUs.¹⁸^,¹⁹ Therefore, a comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EGF and placebo on healing diabetic foot ulcers. The application of EGF, according to our hypothesis, outperforms placebo in facilitating the healing process of DFUs.

Methods

The meta-analysis was reported according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.²⁰^,²⁹

Literature search

The search for relevant English literature published between 2009 to 2021 was performed in Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. The specific key terms used in this study includes, Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), Placebo, Diabetic Foot Ulcer, TDM1 and TDM2. Studies from the reference list were also incorporated in order to find more relevant material. Articles were located and checked on a variety of levels, including title, abstract, and full-text. Final papers that met the inclusion criteria retrieved and included in the study, while those that did not were initially excluded. The full texts of potentially eligible studies were obtained and double-screened for eligibility by two potentials reviewers (Figure 1). Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Figure 1. Summary of the studies included.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria for selecting studies included:

i) Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients with foot wounds.
ii) Literature mainly focused on complete healing time.
iii) Any study design including double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomized control trails, retrospective study, prospective study.
iv) Studies comparing epidermal growth factors and placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.

Exclusion criteria comprised:

i) Combined therapy
ii) Studies with no reported sample size
iii) Single study of epidermal growth factor or placebo treatment.
iv) Non-human studies, reviews, protocols, and trials.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the eligible studies: initial author’s name, year of publication, location, study time (start-to-end date), number of patients, study design, patient characteristics (average age, sex, etc.), and treatment duration. Authors of articles with insufficient data were contacted for details. Papers were not included in the meta-analysis if the contacted author did not provide the required data. Two independent reviewers extracted the required data.

Assessment of risk of bias

To assess the quality of each study, the Cochrane risk, a biased evaluation tool in the Review Manager 5.4 programme for RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies were employed. We looked at random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), participant and personnel blinding (performance bias), outcome assessment blinding (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and other sources of bias. In each domain, studies were classified as having a high (red), unclear (yellow), or low (green) risk of bias. The RevMan software regenerated the risk of bias summary table and graph (version 5.4 Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark). Furthermore, we created a funnel plot to see if there was any publishing bias.

Statistical analyses

Review Manager 5.4 were used to compile all of the data (RevMan, the Cochrane cooperation, Oxford, UK, RRID:SCR_003581). For this meta-analysis, the heterogeneity between studies was assessed by Cochran (Q) and I² statistics, which expresses the percentage of variation between studies. I² was used to evaluate inter study heterogeneity. An I² value higher than 50% was considered to have statistically significant heterogeneity. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fixed or random effect techniques are used in meta-analysis, depending on the degree of heterogeneity. The random effect approach is used to combine results when significant heterogeneity is identified in the data, whereas the fixed effect method is used when significant heterogeneity is not detected.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

In a systematic search of various electronic databases, a total of 993 articles were identified (EMBASE 189, Google Scholar 293, Cochrane Library 123, Elsevier 192, and PubMed 196). Following an initial screening, 308 studies were ruled out due to their titles. Following that, the remaining 685 articles were carefully screened, with 491 studies being excluded based on full text or abstract, including combination therapies (n = 117), no comparison between epidermal growth factor and placebo (n = 96), non-diabetic (n = 82), non-human studies (n = 45), basic science (n = 78), and no clinical trials (n = 73). The remaining 194 papers were evaluated more thoroughly, and 186 were eliminated due to data gaps (n = 27), duplicate studies (n = 68), content of studies without the desired outcome (n = 69), and wound type mismatch (n = 22). Finally, eight randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Figure 1 shows the identified and retrieved articles in the study.

In total, eight randomized control trials (RCTs) that involved a total of 620 patients (337 in the EGF group) and 283 in the placebo group, were included. Except one study from Mexico and another from Cuba, the majority of the studies were from Asia. In these studies, patients received either EGF or placebo intervention, in addition to standard diabetic foot management. The EGF and placebo treatments were administrated by intralesional injection or topical application. All of the patients had type 1 or type 2 diabetes with DFUs. The patient’s ages ranged from 20 to 75 years old. The majority of studies had a follow-up period of 4 to 14 weeks. Table 1 shows the basic characteristics of the included studies.

Table 1. Characteristics of the studies that were included.

Author/year	Country	Study design/Number of cases	Intervention Type	Route	Type of DM	Apply frequency	Duration of treatments (weeks)	Number of patients	Age/Ulcer location	Wagner grade	Complete healing/Ulcer duration	Diabetic duration
Fernandez-Montequin, 2019	Cuban	RCT/20	rhEGF 75 μg (n = 53) rhEGF 25 μg (n = 48)	Intralesional Injection	Type 1 and 2	3 times per week	8 weeks	149	65.5/Foot	Grades 3 or 4	60%/4.3 weeks	15 years
Sanjeev Singla, 2014	India	RCT/1	Betadine/Urogastrone (rhEGF) gel 15	Topically	Type 1 and 2	Once every two weeks	8 weeks	50	55-58/Foot	Grade 1 or 2	22.46%/NA	NA
Kwang Hwan Park, 2018	South Korea	RCT/6	EGF 0.005%/Normal saline	Topically	Type 1 and 2	Twice a day	12 weeks	167	56-59/Foot	Grades 1 or 2	62%/NA	NA
Thambi Durai David, 2018	India	RCT/NA	EGF Cream 150 g	Topically	NA	NA	4 weeks	50	25-75/Foot	Grade 1-2	78%/4 weeks	NA
Prabakar, 2016	India	RCT/1	rhEGF/saline	Topically	NA	NA	14 weeks	60	20-70/Foot	Grades 2	75%/NA	NA
Viswanathan, 2019	India	RCT/1	hEGH gel (Regen-D)/Placebo	Topically	Type 1 and 2	NA	4 weeks	50	55-57/Foot and thigh	Grades 1 and 2	45%/NA	NA
Ajay Kundal, 2020	Indian	RCT/1	(EGF)/Conventional Betadine dressing	Topically	NA	NA	8 weeks	60	30-71/Foot	NA	58%/8	NA
Gomez-Villa, 2014	Mexico	RCT/2	rhEGF (75 μg)/Placebo	Intralesional Injection	Type 1 and 2	3 times per week	8 weeks	34	58.6/Foot	Grades 1, 2 and 3	12%/8	16.3 years

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Figures 2 and 3 show more information on the risk of bias assessment. The quality evaluation was carried out on a total of eight studies that were included in the qualitative analysis, with the results indicating that the risk of bias was mostly low and unclear. Our risk of bias assessment reported a reasonable quality after adapting the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHQR) standard. The funnel plot exhibited a clear symmetric trend, confirming the absence of publishing bias (Figure 4).

Figure 2. The summary of the risk of bias for each study that was included.

Figure 3. Risk of bias for each study.

Figure 4. Funnel plot.

Four weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

Statistical analysis results are shown in Figure 5. Three publications including 85 patients were divided into two groups. The epidermal growth factor group recovered significantly faster than the placebo group after four weeks of treatment. For example, with four-week treatment, the healing frequency in the placebo group was 17%, whereas the healing frequency in the epidermal growth factor group was 34%. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference in the healing rate between the epidermal growth factor and placebo groups after four weeks of treatment. Figure 5 shows a significant difference in risk ratio (RR: 3.04, [95 % CI: 0.50, 18.44] I² = 69%) and heterogeneity (Chi² = 6.46, df = 2 (P = 0.04) I² = 69%).

Figure 5. Forest plots and meta-analysis for EGF and placebo group after four-week healing rates.

Abbreviations; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; EGF, epidermal growth factor.

Eight weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

The eight-week healing rate of epidermal growth factor and the placebo group is compared in five articles. There were 123 patients in the epidermal growth factor group and 125 in the placebo group. After eight weeks of therapy, 79% of patients were recovered with the application of epidermal growth factor, while 25% were recovered in the placebo group, indicating a significant difference (Figure 6). The proportion of complete ulcer healing with EGF was significantly higher than that of placebo (RR: 2.59, [95% CI: 1.42, 4.72] I² = 49%) and (Chi² = 7.92, df = 4 (p = 0.09): I² = 49%).

Figure 6. Healing rate of EGF and placebo after eight weeks of treatments.

Abbreviations; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; EGF, epidermal growth factor.

Twelve weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

A total of three papers compared the healing rate of EGF and placebo groups after twelve weeks of therapy. The EGF group received 134 patients, while the placebo group received 135. There was a clear difference between the epidermal growth factor and placebo groups after twelve weeks of treatment (Figure 7). The epidermal growth factor group had a healing rate of 71%, while the placebo group had a healing rate of 58%. Furthermore, a significant difference in risk ratio and heterogeneity were noted, with risk ratio (RR: 1.01, [95% CI: 0.42, 2.46] I² = 77%) and heterogeneity (Chi² = 8.55, df = 2 (p = 0.01): I² = 77%).

Figure 7. Healing rate of EGF and placebo after twelve-week of treatments.

Abbreviations; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; EGF, Epidermal growth factor.

Complete healing rate with EGF versus placebo

Statistical analysis results for complete healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers in patients treated with EGF versus placebo is shown in Figure 8. The complete healing rate study includes a total of eight publications, with 620 patients demonstrating a complete healing rate; 337 in the EGF group and 283 in the placebo group. For instance, in the epidermal growth factor group a total of 245 (out of 337) healing events occurs, while in placebo group a total of 138 (283) healing events occurs. The risk ratio and heterogeneity were (RR: 1.50, [95% CI: 1.32, 1.71] I² = 21%) and heterogeneity (Chi² = 8.81, df = 7 (p = 0.27): I² = 21%). Overall, the complete healing rate of epidermal growth factor was significantly higher than that of placebo and it could be used as a recommended first line therapy for treatment of DFUs (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Complete healing rate of EGF and placebo in diabetic foot ulcer patients.

Abbreviations; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; EGF, epidermal growth factor.

Discussion

This study was carried out to clarify the efficacy and safety of EGF and placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. A total of 620 diabetic patients with foot ulcers were included in the meta-analysis. Several meta-analyses have been published in the last decade²¹^–²³; however, previously published studies frequently share some common limitations. For example, the quality of risk-of-bias was insufficient because of the unknown performance of bias since the patients were not blinded, which could lead to an overestimation of the study’s quality. Another disadvantage is that most studies do not contain any relevant literature at all. Furthermore, past research has employed protocol analysis,²² which has the potential to disrupt the baseline character balance and overestimate treatment outcomes. Therefore, taking all of the inherent limitations into account, a meta-analysis was undertaken based on eight trials that included data from various nations aiming to compare EGF vs placebo alone. The EGF group included 337 patients, while the placebo group includes 283 patients. Our results indicated that the use of EGF significantly improves the healing rate of DFUs relative to placebo group. For instance, the EGF group shows a complete healing rate of 71% while the placebo group shows a complete healing rate of 58.7%. Our findings are similar to those of Quoc Van Phu Bui et al.,²² who discovered that epidermal growth factor therapy is superior over placebo. Furthermore, Viswanathan et al.,²⁴ determined a substantial difference between epidermal growth factors and placebo therapy. For example, the EGF group had a complete healing rate of 78%, whilst the placebo group had a complete healing rate of 52%. The most positive conclusion in our study is that EGF improves foot ulcer healing considerably. As a result, as compared to placebo, EGF therapy results in a faster recovery of the wound. The significance of growth factors in wound repair could be one explanation for the remarkable therapeutic impact. EGF promotes epidermal cell proliferation by stimulating glycolysis, mitosis, and protein synthesis.²⁵ By causing inflammatory cells to relocate to ulcer sites, EGF can enhance the wound microenvironment and tissue nutrition. Furthermore, Thambi Durai David et al.²⁶ noted that patients treated with EGF had a substantially higher rate of complete healing rates than those treated with placebo i.e. the percentage of total recovery in the EGF and placebo groups was 71.2% and 48.9%, respectively (Figure 8). Over the course of four weeks, a significant difference was found in cure rates between the EGF and placebo groups, ranging from 3-92% to 0-65%, respectively. Our obtained results are compatible with the findings of the previous meta-analysis.²¹ For example, Yang et al.,²¹ found that, EGF therapy outperformed placebo and the healing rate was 23% in the EGF group and 10% in the placebo group (Figure 6). Consequently, after eight weeks of therapy, there was a substantial difference between the EGF and placebo groups, with healing rates of 16-92 % and 0-25%, respectively. Following this in a recent meta-analysis, Kumar et al.,²⁷ found a significant difference between the EGF group and the placebo group, i.e. in the EGF group, complete wound healing was 76%, compared to 20% in the placebo group. Moreover, the average recovery time for totally healed ulcers was eleven weeks (Figure 7). However, wound healing in the EGF and placebo groups differed significantly after 12 weeks of therapy. The EGF group had a healing rate of 20-73%, while the placebo group had a healing rate of 11-52%. According to previous research by Yang et al.,²⁸ EGF is far superior to the placebo group, with a complete cure rate of 23.5-95.3% in EGF and 0 to 52.1% in the placebo group. Overall, our findings provide meaningful information to current treatment scenarios of DFUs. As a result, based on current evidence, EGF administration to DFUs is considered as effective and safe.

The most important strengths of our meta-analysis are that; first to our knowledge with eight RCTs this is the most comprehensive meta-analysis on comparing EGF and placebo for DFUs. We also looked for suitable references and emailed the authors for the missing information. Our meta-analysis includes several current clinical studies, which provided more evidence than the prior meta-analysis. This is significant because the number of trials comparing EGF to placebo in the treatment of DFU is currently limited. However, even though publication bias analysis was performed, there are still some potential biases with this review. Some of the literatures included were of poor quality. Although the authors reported that their studies were randomized, the random sequences and blind details were not described in the original articles. The origin of the works did not correspond to a homogeneous recruitment. The economic analysis is important for patients with long diabetic history, especially in developing countries. However, most of the trials didn’t provide cost-effectiveness data. The amount of data on adverse effects was also limited, and hence we could not elicit the most common side effect experienced as a result of EGF and placebo treatment.

Conclusion

Compared to placebo therapy, EGF significantly accelerate the healing of diabetic foot ulcers at 4-12 weeks of treatment. The EGF has the potential to improve ulcer rehabilitation and speed up wound healing. This conclusion, however, should be approached with caution. More well-designed clinical trials in different populations with long follow-up time are required to further examine the topical EGF therapy in management of diabetic foot ulcer in the future.

Data availability

Underlying data

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA checklist for ‘Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis’. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19928645.²⁹

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

1. Unuofin JO, Lebelo SL: Antioxidant Effects and mechanisms of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes: An updated review. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2020; 2020: 1–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 8th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2017. Reference Source
3. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 6th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2013. Reference Source
4. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2015. Reference Source
5. Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, et al.: Global and Regional Diabetes Prevalence Estimates for 2019 and Projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th Edition. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019; 157: 107843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Davis IC, Ahmadizadeh I, Randell J, et al.: Understanding the impact of hypoglycemia on the cardiovascular system. Expert. Rev. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017; 12(1): 21–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Alotaibi A, Perry L, Gholizadeh L, et al.: Incidence and prevalence rates of diabetes mellitus in Saudi Arabia: an overview. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health. 2017; 7(4): 211–218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Klein BE, Klein R, Moss SE, et al.: Parental history of diabetes in a population-based study. Diabetes Care. 1996; 19(8): 827–830. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyurus E, et al.: EURODIAB Study Group. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989–2003 and predicted new cases 2005–20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet. 2009; 373(9680): 2027–2033. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Grennan D: Diabetic foot ulcers. JAMA. 2019; 321(1): 114. Publisher Full Text
11. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA: Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017; 376(24): 2367–2375. Publisher Full Text
12. Walsh JW, Hoffstad OJ, Sullivan MO, et al.: Association of diabetic foot ulcer and death in a population-based cohort from the United Kingdom. Diabet. Med. 2016; 33(11): 1493–1498. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, et al.: Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: A review and meta-analysis. Ann. Med. 2017; 49(2): 106–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. International Diabetes Federation the global burden: IDF diabetes atlas.5th ed.2012. Reference Source
15. Onodera R, Teramukai S, Tanaka S, et al.: Bone marrow mononuclear cells versus G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood mononuclear cells for treatment of lower limb ASO: pooled analysis for long-term prognosis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011; 46(2): 278–284. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Choi SM, Ryu HA, Lee KM, et al.: Development of Stabilized Growth Factor-Loaded Hyaluronatee Collagen Dressing (HCD) matrix for impaired wound healing. Biomater Res. 2016; 20: 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Lee CH, Liu KS, Chang SH, et al.: Promoting diabetic wound therapy using biodegradable rhPDGF-Loaded nanofibrous membranes: CONSORT-compliant article. Medicine. 2015; 94(47): e1873. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Hong JP, Jung HD, Kim YW: Recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF) to enhance healing for diabetic foot ulcers. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2006; 56(4): 394–398. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Persiani F, Paolini A, Camilli D, et al.: Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Therapy for Treatment of Lower Limb Ischemia in Diabetic Patients: a Single-Center Experience. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2018; 53: 190–196. Publisher Full Text
20. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Yang S, Geng Z, Ma K, et al.: Efficacy of topical recombinant human epidermal growth factor for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Low Extrem. Wounds. 2016; 15(2): 120–125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Thien Quoc B, Quoc VPB, Nemeth D, et al.: Epidermal growth factor is effective in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis and systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16(14): 2584.
23. Yang Q, Zhang Y, Yin H, et al.: Topical recombinant human epidermal growth factor for diabetic foot ulcers: a met analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020; 62: 442–451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Viswanathan V, Juttada U, Babu M: Efficacy of Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor (Regen-D 150) in Healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Hospital-Based Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Low Extrem. Wounds. 2019; 19(2): 158–164. Publisher Full Text
25. Mohan VK: Recombinant human epidermal growth factor (REGEN-D 150): effect on healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2007; 78(3): 405–411. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Thambi DD, Jayalal JA, Selwyn JK: The Role of Epidermal Growth Factor Cream in Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcer - Comparative Analytical Study in South India. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2019; 8(6): 2249–9571. Publisher Full Text
27. Kumar A, Sinha S, Khandelwal B: Efficacy of topical recombinant epidermal growth factor as compared to Povidone Iodine on chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Int. J. Health Clin. Res. 2020; 3(4): 82–88.
28. Qi Y, Zhang Y, Yin H, et al.: Topical Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.2020; 62: 442–451. Publisher Full Text
29. Fazal R, Shah JA: PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx. figshare.2022. Online resource. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Jul 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Burn and Plastic Surgery department, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China
² School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of technology, Brisbane, Australia., Brisbane, 4072, Australia
³ Tissue Organ Bank & Tissue Engineering Center, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China
⁴ Laboratory of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaption and Evolutionary Ecology, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650500, China
⁵ Department of zoology, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal 18000, Pakistan., Dir upper, 18000, Pakistan
⁶ The second affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University 310058, P.R China, Zhejiang, China
⁷ Department of infectious diseases, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, P.R. China, Yinchuan, 750004, China

Fazal Rahim
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Xie Yan
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Jawad Ali Shah
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Nida Bibi
Roles: Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Zafar Ullah Khan
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization

Shah Nawaz
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Yao Ming
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by key Research & development projects of Ningxia Hui Autonomous region at Ningxia medical university 2019, under the Grant number: 2019BEG03069.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 10 Mar 2023, 11:773

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.2

version 1

Published: 11 Jul 2022, 11:773

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.1

Copyright

© 2023 Rahim F et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Rahim F, Yan X, Shah JA et al. Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 11:773 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.121712.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 10 Mar 2023

Revised

Views

2

Reviewer Report 19 Oct 2023

Poonam Kushwaha, Faculty of Pharmacy, Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145397.r211405

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. The comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials adds to the growing evidence supporting EGF as a

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. The comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials adds to the growing evidence supporting EGF as a promising intervention for diabetic foot ulcers. The study's findings align with previous research, highlighting the significant impact of EGF on accelerating wound healing.
The authors have done a commendable job in conducting a rigorous analysis and assessing the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality assessment and the absence of publication bias, as indicated by the funnel plot, contribute to the credibility of the findings. This strengthens the case for EGF as a recommended treatment for diabetic foot ulcers.
Diabetic foot ulcers pose a substantial health risk and economic burden, particularly in the face of the rising prevalence of diabetes worldwide. This meta-analysis underscores the urgency of developing effective treatments for diabetic foot ulcers and the potential role of EGF in reducing the associated morbidity and mortality.
The study's emphasis on the need for cost-effectiveness data is significant, especially for resource-constrained settings. Future research could delve into the economic implications of EGF treatment in different healthcare systems, shedding light on its affordability and accessibility to a wider population of diabetic patients.
One limitation of this meta-analysis is the lack of comprehensive data on adverse effects. Understanding the safety profile of EGF in the context of diabetic foot ulcer treatment is crucial. Future studies should prioritize reporting adverse events to provide a more complete picture of the intervention's overall risk-benefit profile.
The consistent findings of this meta-analysis reinforce the importance of growth factors in wound healing, and EGF's role in promoting cell proliferation and enhancing the wound microenvironment. These biological mechanisms provide a scientific basis for EGF's efficacy in diabetic foot ulcer treatment.

Overall, this study contributes significantly to the field of diabetic foot ulcer management. The evidence presented here supports the use of epidermal growth factor as an effective and safe treatment option. This meta-analysis is a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers working to improve the care and outcomes of diabetic patients with foot ulcers.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Exploration of nanotechnology in enhanced dermal drug delivery.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

5

Reviewer Report 18 Sep 2023

Chin Chai Yee, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145397.r202888

The overall conclusions drawn in the review appear to be generally supported by the results presented in the meta-analysis. The review provides a comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by comparing the efficacy and safety of EGF (Epidermal ... Continue reading

The overall conclusions drawn in the review appear to be generally supported by the results presented in the meta-analysis. The review provides a comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by comparing the efficacy and safety of EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor) versus placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Here are some constructive comments based on the results and discussion:

The review rightly highlights its strengths, including its comprehensive approach with eight RCTs, the efforts made to gather missing information, and the inclusion of recent clinical studies. These strengths enhance the credibility of the meta-analysis and provide more robust evidence compared to prior studies.
The review effectively draws comparisons with previous meta-analyses and individual studies, showing that its findings align with existing evidence. This strengthens the case for the efficacy of EGF in DFU treatment.
The review acknowledges several limitations, such as the lack of detailed information on randomization and blinding in some studies, heterogeneity in the recruitment criteria, and the absence of cost-effectiveness and adverse effects data. Recognizing these limitations is important as it highlights potential sources of bias and areas where future research can improve.
While the review highlights that EGF therapy significantly improves DFU healing compared to placebo, it should emphasize the clinical significance of this improvement. What does it mean for patients in terms of healing time and overall outcomes? Providing more context to the results would enhance the understanding of their practical implications.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: My area of research is lies on biomaterial development and investigating the mechanism of the wound healing effects using bioactive compounds or synthetic drugs.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 11 Jul 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 10 Mar 23	read	read
Version 1 11 Jul 22

Chin Chai Yee, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Poonam Kushwaha, Integral University, Lucknow, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

19 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

Poonam Kushwaha, Faculty of Pharmacy, Integral University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. The comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials adds to the growing evidence supporting EGF as a promising intervention for diabetic foot ulcers. The study's findings align with previous research, highlighting the significant impact of EGF on accelerating wound healing.
The authors have done a commendable job in conducting a rigorous analysis and assessing the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality assessment and the absence of publication bias, as indicated by the funnel plot, contribute to the credibility of the findings. This strengthens the case for EGF as a recommended treatment for diabetic foot ulcers.
Diabetic foot ulcers pose a substantial health risk and economic burden, particularly in the face of the rising prevalence of diabetes worldwide. This meta-analysis underscores the urgency of developing effective treatments for diabetic foot ulcers and the potential role of EGF in reducing the associated morbidity and mortality.
The study's emphasis on the need for cost-effectiveness data is significant, especially for resource-constrained settings. Future research could delve into the economic implications of EGF treatment in different healthcare systems, shedding light on its affordability and accessibility to a wider population of diabetic patients.
One limitation of this meta-analysis is the lack of comprehensive data on adverse effects. Understanding the safety profile of EGF in the context of diabetic foot ulcer treatment is crucial. Future studies should prioritize reporting adverse events to provide a more complete picture of the intervention's overall risk-benefit profile.
The consistent findings of this meta-analysis reinforce the importance of growth factors in wound healing, and EGF's role in promoting cell proliferation and enhancing the wound microenvironment. These biological mechanisms provide a scientific basis for EGF's efficacy in diabetic foot ulcer treatment.

Overall, this study contributes significantly to the field of diabetic foot ulcer management. The evidence presented here supports the use of epidermal growth factor as an effective and safe treatment option. This meta-analysis is a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers working to improve the care and outcomes of diabetic patients with foot ulcers.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Exploration of nanotechnology in enhanced dermal drug delivery.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

18 Sep 2023 | for Version 2

Chin Chai Yee, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The overall conclusions drawn in the review appear to be generally supported by the results presented in the meta-analysis. The review provides a comprehensive analysis of eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by comparing the efficacy and safety of EGF (Epidermal Growth Factor) versus placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Here are some constructive comments based on the results and discussion:

The review rightly highlights its strengths, including its comprehensive approach with eight RCTs, the efforts made to gather missing information, and the inclusion of recent clinical studies. These strengths enhance the credibility of the meta-analysis and provide more robust evidence compared to prior studies.
The review effectively draws comparisons with previous meta-analyses and individual studies, showing that its findings align with existing evidence. This strengthens the case for the efficacy of EGF in DFU treatment.
The review acknowledges several limitations, such as the lack of detailed information on randomization and blinding in some studies, heterogeneity in the recruitment criteria, and the absence of cost-effectiveness and adverse effects data. Recognizing these limitations is important as it highlights potential sources of bias and areas where future research can improve.
While the review highlights that EGF therapy significantly improves DFU healing compared to placebo, it should emphasize the clinical significance of this improvement. What does it mean for patients in terms of healing time and overall outcomes? Providing more context to the results would enhance the understanding of their practical implications.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

My area of research is lies on biomaterial development and investigating the mechanism of the wound healing effects using bioactive compounds or synthetic drugs.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Unuofin JO, Lebelo SL: Antioxidant Effects and mechanisms of medicinal plants and their bioactive compounds for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes: An updated review. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2020; 2020: 1–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 8th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2017. Reference Source

[3] 3. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 6th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2013. Reference Source

[4] 4. International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas. 7th ed.Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2015. Reference Source

[5] 5. Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, et al.: Global and Regional Diabetes Prevalence Estimates for 2019 and Projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th Edition. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019; 157: 107843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Davis IC, Ahmadizadeh I, Randell J, et al.: Understanding the impact of hypoglycemia on the cardiovascular system. Expert. Rev. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017; 12(1): 21–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Alotaibi A, Perry L, Gholizadeh L, et al.: Incidence and prevalence rates of diabetes mellitus in Saudi Arabia: an overview. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health. 2017; 7(4): 211–218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Klein BE, Klein R, Moss SE, et al.: Parental history of diabetes in a population-based study. Diabetes Care. 1996; 19(8): 827–830. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyurus E, et al.: EURODIAB Study Group. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989–2003 and predicted new cases 2005–20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet. 2009; 373(9680): 2027–2033. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Grennan D: Diabetic foot ulcers. JAMA. 2019; 321(1): 114. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA: Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017; 376(24): 2367–2375. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Walsh JW, Hoffstad OJ, Sullivan MO, et al.: Association of diabetic foot ulcer and death in a population-based cohort from the United Kingdom. Diabet. Med. 2016; 33(11): 1493–1498. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, et al.: Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: A review and meta-analysis. Ann. Med. 2017; 49(2): 106–116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. International Diabetes Federation the global burden: IDF diabetes atlas.5th ed.2012. Reference Source

[15] 15. Onodera R, Teramukai S, Tanaka S, et al.: Bone marrow mononuclear cells versus G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood mononuclear cells for treatment of lower limb ASO: pooled analysis for long-term prognosis. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011; 46(2): 278–284. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Choi SM, Ryu HA, Lee KM, et al.: Development of Stabilized Growth Factor-Loaded Hyaluronatee Collagen Dressing (HCD) matrix for impaired wound healing. Biomater Res. 2016; 20: 9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Lee CH, Liu KS, Chang SH, et al.: Promoting diabetic wound therapy using biodegradable rhPDGF-Loaded nanofibrous membranes: CONSORT-compliant article. Medicine. 2015; 94(47): e1873. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Hong JP, Jung HD, Kim YW: Recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF) to enhance healing for diabetic foot ulcers. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2006; 56(4): 394–398. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Persiani F, Paolini A, Camilli D, et al.: Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Therapy for Treatment of Lower Limb Ischemia in Diabetic Patients: a Single-Center Experience. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2018; 53: 190–196. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Yang S, Geng Z, Ma K, et al.: Efficacy of topical recombinant human epidermal growth factor for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Low Extrem. Wounds. 2016; 15(2): 120–125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Thien Quoc B, Quoc VPB, Nemeth D, et al.: Epidermal growth factor is effective in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis and systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16(14): 2584.

[23] 23. Yang Q, Zhang Y, Yin H, et al.: Topical recombinant human epidermal growth factor for diabetic foot ulcers: a met analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020; 62: 442–451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Viswanathan V, Juttada U, Babu M: Efficacy of Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor (Regen-D 150) in Healing Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Hospital-Based Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Low Extrem. Wounds. 2019; 19(2): 158–164. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Mohan VK: Recombinant human epidermal growth factor (REGEN-D 150): effect on healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2007; 78(3): 405–411. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Thambi DD, Jayalal JA, Selwyn JK: The Role of Epidermal Growth Factor Cream in Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcer - Comparative Analytical Study in South India. Int. J. Health Sci. Res. 2019; 8(6): 2249–9571. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Kumar A, Sinha S, Khandelwal B: Efficacy of topical recombinant epidermal growth factor as compared to Povidone Iodine on chronic diabetic foot ulcers. Int. J. Health Clin. Res. 2020; 3(4): 82–88.

[28] 28. Qi Y, Zhang Y, Yin H, et al.: Topical Recombinant Human Epidermal Growth Factor for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.2020; 62: 442–451. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Fazal R, Shah JA: PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx. figshare.2022. Online resource. Publisher Full Text

Epidermal growth factor outperforms placebo in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Literature search

Figure 1. Summary of the studies included.

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction

Assessment of risk of bias

Statistical analyses

Results

Study selection and characteristics

Table 1. Characteristics of the studies that were included.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

Figure 2. The summary of the risk of bias for each study that was included.

Figure 3. Risk of bias for each study.

Figure 4. Funnel plot.

Four weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

Figure 5. Forest plots and meta-analysis for EGF and placebo group after four-week healing rates.

Eight weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

Figure 6. Healing rate of EGF and placebo after eight weeks of treatments.

Twelve weeks healing rate of EGF and placebo

Figure 7. Healing rate of EGF and placebo after twelve-week of treatments.

Complete healing rate with EGF versus placebo

Figure 8. Complete healing rate of EGF and placebo in diabetic foot ulcer patients.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated