Results for blinded evaluation
Among the 16 randomly enrolled patients, one was excluded due to a lack of post-treatment follow-ups, and 4 were unable to be analyzed as the central reader could not discern the deeper parts of the wounds from the photographs. The randomization and follow-up process for patients is illustrated in Fig. Flow chart for subjectThe post-treatment IDSA/IWGDF gradings were compared across 11 subjects, revealing inconsistencies between non-blinded and center-reading blinded evaluations according to the consistency test (Kappa=0.248, Within the experimental group, three cases were deemed grade 1 by the non-blinded evaluation and were rated grade 2 by the center-reading blinded evaluation. Inconsistencies were also observed within this group between non-blinded and blinded evaluations (Kappa=0.273, In the control group, three cases considered grade 2 in the non-blinded evaluation were rated as grade 1 in the center-reading blinded evaluation. Here too, inconsistencies between non-blinded and blinded evaluations were detected (Kappa=0.273, Comparison of IDSA/IWGDF grading results after treatmentComparison of IDSA/IWGDF assessment results after treatment in the trial groupComparison of IDSA/IWGDF assessment results after treatment in the control group