Acellular Dermal Matrix for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Aims: To evaluate the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic reviews (SRs)/metaanalyses (MAs) of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Methods: We searched and retrieved SRs and MAs on the application of ADM for DFU from PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and VIP databases. We employed AMSTAR 2 to assess methodological quality, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to grade, and the strength of evidence of included SRs/MAs. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a re-MA of the primary RCTs. Results: A total of 7 SRs/MAs were included. Results from the AMSTAR 2 evaluation revealed a low overall quality; the GRADE system showed that the evidence was of moderate to very low quality. Our re-MA showed that ADM was superior to standard of care (SOC), with regards to complete wound healing rate at 12 weeks (RR = 1.74, 95% CI:1.34-2.25, P < .0001), complete wound healing rate at 16 weeks (RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26-1.77, P ＜ .00001); healing time (MD = −2.06, 95% CI: −2.57 to −1.54, P < .00001) and adverse events (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.49-0.80, P = .0002). However, a consensus has not yet been reached between ADM and SOC groups with regard to outcome indicators of the reduction of ulcer area and quality of life; and subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the xenograft ADM and SOC groups (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95-1.93, P = .09) at 12 weeks. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that ADM is more effective than the standard of care in the treatment of DFU, particularly for full-thickness, noninfected, and nonischemic foot ulcers, but with low evidence quality. Therefore, the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and prudently, and the role of ADM in DFU needs further exploration.