ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of nine different dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot (DF). MethodsDatabases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), Web of Science, EMbase, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized control trials (RCTs) about the effects of dressings for the DF from inception to April 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then network meta-analysis was performed using WinBugs 1.4.3 and Stata 13.0 softwares. ResultsA total of 29 RCTs involving 2 393 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that silver ion was superior to alginate, hydrogel, honey, sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Alginate was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Hydrogel was superior to povidone-iodine gauze; Honey was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Foam was superior to silver ion, alginate, hydrogel, honey, sterile gauze, povidone-iodine gauze and antibacterials gauze; Chitosan was superior to hydrogel, sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze; Antibacterials gauze was superior to sterile gauze and povidone-iodine gauze. All of the differences were statistically significant. Probability ranking according to SUCRA showed that there was a great possibility for foam and chitosan in the treatment of DF. ConclusionBased on the results of network meta-analysis and rank, foam dressing and chitosan dressing are superior to other dressings in the treatment of DF. More attentions should be made regarding comparisons directly of different dressing and reporting of cost-effective analysis.