Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076893›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.

Johannes A N Dorresteijn, Didi Mw Kriegsman, Willem J J Assendelft, Gerlof D Valk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 342 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes A N DorresteijnDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands.
Didi Mw Kriegsman
Willem J J Assendelft
Gerlof D Valk
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLZiekenhuis Amstelland · NL

Funding

Department of Health
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 effects of patient education on the prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH

methodsEligible studies were identified by searching The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 1 August 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2009 to July Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 31, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2009 to 2012 Week 30); and EBSCO CINAHL (2009 to 26 July 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated educational programmes for preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary end points were foot ulceration or ulcer recurrence and amputation. MAIN

resultsOf the 12 RCTs included, the effect of patient education on primary end points was reported in only five. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. One of the RCTs showed reduced incidence of foot ulceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.66) and amputation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) during one-year follow-up of diabetes patients at high risk of foot ulceration after a one-hour group education session. However, one similar study, with lower risk of bias, did not confirm this finding (RR amputation 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; RR ulceration 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). Three other studies, also did not demonstrate any effect of education on the primary end points, but were most likely underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self-reported self-care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. Callus, nail problems and fungal infections improved in only one of five RCTs. Only one of the included RCTs was at low risk of bias. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. Yet, based on the only two sufficiently powered studies reporting the effect of patient education on primary end points, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicAdultDiabetic FootHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23076893
OpenAlexW2132846438

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.