Comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct vs. a dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a real world setting
We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC) and a dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft (dHACM) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Using a wound-care specific electronic medical record database we assessed real-world outcomes in 218 patients with 226 DFUs receiving treatment in 2014 at 99 wound care centers. The analysis included DFUs ≥1 and <25cm(2) with duration <=1 year and area reduction <=20% in 14 days prior to treatment (N=163, BLCC; N=63, dHACM). The average baseline areas and durations were 6.0 cm(2) and 4.4 months for BLCC and 5.2 cm(2) and 4.6 months for dHACM, respectively. Patients treated with dHACM had more applications compared to those treated with BLCC (median 3.0 vs. 2.0) (p=0.003). A Cox model adjusted for key covariates including area and duration found the median time to closure for BLCC was 13.3 weeks compared to 26 weeks for dHACM, and the proportion of wounds healed were significantly higher for BLCC by 12 weeks (48% versus 28%) and 24 weeks (72% versus 47%) (p=0.01). Treatment with a bioengineered living cellular technology increased the probability of healing by 97% compared with a dehydrated amniotic membrane (hazard ratio = 1.97 [95% confidence interval 1.17, 3.33], p=0.01). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,250,571
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#41
of 1,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,006
of 301,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Wound Repair & Regeneration
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
