Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26299991›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.

Ruben C Hoogeveen, Johannes A N Dorresteijn, Didi M W Kriegsman, Gerlof D Valk

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Assessment of Diabetic Foot Prevention by Nurses.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruben C HoogeveenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Diakonessenhuis hospital, Bosboomstraat 1, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3582 KE.
Johannes A N Dorresteijn
Didi M W Kriegsman
Gerlof D Valk
Diakonessenhuis hospital · NLUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLZiekenhuis Amstelland · NL

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUlceration of the feet, which can lead to the amputation of feet and legs, is a major problem for people with diabetes mellitus, and can cause substantial economic burden. Single preventive strategies have not been shown to reduce the incidence of foot ulceration to a significant extent. Therefore, in clinical practice, preventive interventions directed at patients, healthcare providers and/or the structure of health care are often combined (complex interventions).

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of complex interventions in the prevention of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus compared with single interventions, usual care or alternative complex interventions. A complex intervention is defined as an integrated care approach, combining two or more prevention strategies on at least two different levels of care: the patient, the healthcare provider and/or the structure of health care. SEARCH

methodsFor the second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 22 May 2015), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), The Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), The NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 May 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 21 May, 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 21 May, 2015) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 22 May, 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of combinations of preventive strategies, not solely patient education, for the prevention of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus, with single interventions, usual care or alternative complex interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were assigned to independently select studies, to extract study data and to assess risk of bias of included studies, using predefined criteria. MAIN

resultsOnly six RCTs met the criteria for inclusion. The study characteristics differed substantially in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. In three studies that compared the effect of an education-centred complex intervention with usual care or written instructions, only little evidence of benefit was found. Three studies compared the effect of more intensive and comprehensive complex interventions with usual care. One study found a significant and cost-effective reduction, one of lower extremity amputations (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71). One other study found a significant reduction of both amputation and foot ulcers. The last study reported improvement of patients' self care behaviour. All six included RCTs were at high risk of bias, with hardly any of the predefined quality assessment criteria met. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no high-quality research evidence evaluating complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration and insufficient evidence of benefit.

Indexed as

AdultAmputation, SurgicalDiabetic FootHumansPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26299991
PMCPMC8504983
OpenAlexW2150297528

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.