Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well structured and clearly written, with a coherent presentation of the topic and an appropriate selection of references. The results are presented in a good manner, contributing to a better understanding of the subject. Overall, the review demonstrates a  meritorious clinical relevance.

Nevertheless, I would like to raise a specific question for the authors. In your clinical practice, do you manage patients with diabetic foot complications? If so, it would be highly informative to briefly describe the therapeutic approaches you use in such cases. In particular, it would be useful to know whether you utilize surgical techniques or non-surgical methods, including advanced wound care strategies. Furthermore, do you incorporate negative-pressure wound therapy as part of your management protocol?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the article appears to be misleading and does not accurately reflect the study design or comparison made. It would be more appropriate to phrase it as: “Efficacy of treatment for diabetic foot ulcers compared with various conventional retrospective treatments” This wording better conveys that the study evaluates the efficacy of diabetic foot ulcer treatment in comparison with retrospective conventional approaches, thereby avoiding potential misinterpretation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed the efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy for diabetic foot syndrome over 11 articles. Five articles demonstrated a better healing rate, with two studies observing 100% healing rate among patients in the intervention group. However, they noted high heterogeneity among the studies. Time to achieve 100% granulation tissue formation was also assessed. Seven articles demonstrated a faster achievement of 100% granulation tissue formation in the intervention group. However, there was again high heterogeneity among the studies. A reduction in the size of the ulcers was reported in seven studies, but once again there was high heterogeneity among the studies. Overall, they find strong evidence that negative pressure wound therapy offers several significant clinical benefits over conventional treatments.

This is an important and useful assessment of the studies in this area. The use of English language was good, although some Spanish terms remained in the headings and figures. The manuscript should be gone over again for spelling (e. g. Resultados on line 162, Incluidos etc in Figure 1).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx