Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15674879›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.

G D Valk, D M W Kriegsman, W J J Assendelft

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

G D ValkEMGO Institute, Faculty of Medicine, VU Medical Center, Van der Boechorstraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands. G.Valk@xs4all.nl
D M W Kriegsman
W J J Assendelft

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, (September 2004) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004). 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: Two reviewers undertook data extraction and assessment of study quality independently. MAIN

resultsNine RCTs were included. Four trials compared the effect of intensive with brief educational interventions; two 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 (95% CI 0.14 - 0.71)) after one year. The other RCT did not find an effect at seven years follow-up. Participants' foot care knowledge significantly improved with education in two trials. In one trial foot care knowledge improved significantly in the control group, in contrast to the intervention group. 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(95% CI 0.16 -1.00)) and improved foot care behaviour. Evidence from three RCTs comparing the effect of patient-tailored education in addition to usual care was conflicting.The methodological quality of the nine included RCTs was poor. The internal validity score (range 0 - 10) of individual RCTs ranged from 2 to 5. AUTHORS'

conclusionsRCTs evaluating education for people with diabetes, aimed at preventing diabetic foot ulceration, are mostly of poor methodological quality. Weak evidence 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

Patient Education as TopicDiabetic FootHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.