Comparative Effectiveness of Debridement Methods on Wound Healing Outcomes in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Closed

Asmat Burhan, Eza Kemal Firdaus, Septian Mirova Sebayang, Ciara O'Really, Indah Susanti, Rantiningsih Sumarni, Mesya, Vijay Kumar, Anung Ahadi Pradana, Rizki Hidayat

2026 Wound Repair and Regeneration Vol. 34 Issue 3 Review Cited by 1 Quartile

Abstract

Despite advancements in treatment, diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are challenging to heal, and the comparative efficacy of debridement strategies is poorly understood. This study assessed the effectiveness and ranked debridement methods for DFU based on wound size reduction (WSR). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (BNMA) of randomised trials, including individuals with diabetic foot ulcers. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were examined till August 2025. Seven debridement approaches were compared with each other and with standard wound care (SWC); trial arms were classified by the primary debridement method, with routine wound care co-interventions permitted. We estimated mean differences with 95% credible intervals, ranked treatments using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) (0%–100%; higher scores indicate a greater likelihood of best effect), and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Twenty-two RCTs (n = 1148) were incorporated. Biological debridement showed the largest reduction in WSR (MD 29.6%, 95% CrI −4.4 to 64.1), and enzymatic debridement (MD 21.8%, −11.5 to 55.6). Sensitivity analyses supported biological debridement over surgical and SWC, and enzymatic debridement over autolytic debridement. Across all interventions, SUCRA ranked autolytic (85%) and mechanical (75%) highest, whereas the largest estimated WSR were observed with biological and enzymatic debridement. Overall, certainty of evidence was low, although a few comparisons were rated as moderate certainty. Biological and enzymatic debridement seem to be the most successful for decreasing DFU size. However, SUCRA preferred autolytic and mechanical techniques. Evidence is scarce, endorsing personalised care and comprehensive multicenter trials. © 2026 The Wound Healing Society.

Affiliations

School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Universitas Harapan Bangsa, Banyumas, Indonesia; Study Program of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Tanjungpura, Tanjungpura, Indonesia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom; School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Universitas Sahid Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia; School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Universitas Aisyah Pringsewu, Lampung, Indonesia; Department of Wound, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India; College of Nursing, International PhD Program in Gerontology and Long-Term Care, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Universitas Nasional, Jakarta, Indonesia

Research at a Glance

Premium content — register to unlock

Research at a Glance

Register to unlock

Topics & SDG Alignment

Premium content — register to unlock

Topics & SDG Alignment

Register to unlock

Collaboration

Premium content — register to unlock

Collaboration

Register to unlock

Author Profile (Selected)

Premium content — register to unlock

Author Profile (Selected)

Register to unlock

References Overview

Premium content — register to unlock

References Overview

Register to unlock

Journal & Source

Premium content — register to unlock

Journal & Source

Register to unlock

Metadata & Integrity

Premium content — register to unlock

Metadata & Integrity

Register to unlock