SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses.The American journal of managed care · 2005Pooled it
- Family Support in Healthy Dietary Behaviours Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Effect of Early Postoperative Physical Therapy and Educational Program on Wound Recurrence in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing decreased sensation and increased sensory phenomena in diabetic polyneuropathies.Diabetes · 2013Review
- The care process of diabetic foot ulcer patients: a qualitative study in Iran.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2012Article
- Improving health outcomes with better patient understanding and education.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2010Article
- Patients' perspectives on foot complications in type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- What Does the Cochrane Collaboration Say about Adult Client/Patient Education?Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2008Article
- Article
- Diabetic foot workshop: Improving technical and educational skills for nurses.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of IranArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUlceration of the feet, which can result in loss of limbs and even death, is one of the major health problems for people with diabetes mellitus.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of patient education on the prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible studies were identified by searching the Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, which is compiled from regular searches of the major health care databases including MEDLINE, Cinahl and EMBASE, hand searching of wound care journals and relevant conference proceedings. For this review the Register was searched up to March 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated educational programmes for the prevention of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. There was no restriction on language of the publications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by two reviewers independently. MAIN
resultsThe methodological quality of the 8 included RCTs was poor. The internal validity score (range 0 - 10) of individual RCTs ranged from 2 to 4. Four trials compared the effect of intensive with brief educational interventions; 2 of these reported clinical endpoints. One study involving high-risk patients reported a reduction in ulcer incidence (Peto OR: 0.28 (95% CI 0.13,0.59)) and amputation rate (Peto OR: 0.32 (0.14,0.71)) after 1 year. The other RCT did not find an effect at seven years follow-up. Participants' foot care knowledge significantly improved with education in 2 trials. In one trial, foot care knowledge was significantly worse at 6 months, although foot care behaviour improved significantly. Non-calcaneal callus was significantly reduced by education in one trial. One RCT did not find that patient foot care education, as part of a general diabetes education program reduced foot ulceration compared with usual care. Patient education as part of a complex intervention targeted at both people with diabetes and doctors reduced the number of serious foot lesions at one year, in one RCT (OR: 0.41(0.16-1.00)) and improved foot care behaviour. Evidence from 2 RCTs comparing the effect of patient-tailored education in addition to usual care was conflicting. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsRCTs evaluating education for people with diabetes, aimed at preventing diabetic foot ulceration, are mostly of poor methodological quality. Existing data suggests that patient education may reduce foot ulceration and amputations, especially in high-risk patients. Foot care knowledge and behaviour of patients seem positively influenced by patient education in the short term. Because of conflicting results and the methodological shortcomings more RCTs are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11687114What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.