Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28191040›Full record

SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2017

Moisturisers for the treatment of foot xerosis: a systematic review.

Justin Parker, Rolf Scharfbillig, Sara Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Justin ParkerMember, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence [iCAHE] and Sansom Institute University of South Australia, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia.
Rolf ScharfbilligMember, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence [iCAHE] and Sansom Institute University of South Australia, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7802-9562
Sara JonesMember, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence [iCAHE] and Sansom Institute University of South Australia, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia.
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundXerosis, literally dryness of the skin, of the foot is a common condition encountered clinically, which can lead to discomfort and predisposition to infection. Currently, there are no evidence-based recommendations on which moisturiser formulations best alleviate xerotic symptoms. The aim of this review was to guide clinical practice in the treatment of primary and diabetes related foot xerosis, by identifying from the existing literature the most effective ingredient or formulation of topical treatments for symptoms of primary foot xerosis in the general population.

methodsA systematic review of published experimental trials was undertaken. Only studies pertaining to primary xerosis, classified within levels II - IV of the NHRMC hierarchy were reviewed. EMBASE, AMED, Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Ageline and SCOPUS were searched using relevant search terms and keywords and pearling of reference lists was undertaken. Studies were evaluated for methodological quality using a critical appraisal tool. Individual active ingredients were identified from all studies, along with observed reported outcomes. A narrative synthesis was then conducted.

resultsA total of 22 experimental studies were included, from which 12 different active ingredients were identified. Study literature consisted of mainly comparative studies against other active interventions or controls, or pre-post-tests and was of a poor-to-moderate methodological quality as assessed by the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument. Urea was the most researched active ingredient (14 studies), with ammonium lactate being next (7 studies).

conclusionsNo conclusive recommendations were possible due to wide variation in study quality, methodologies and outcome measures. A synthesis of available literature suggests that treatments containing urea as a primary active ingredient have been the most researched. The poor quality of literature generally, however, precludes recommendation of any active ingredient over another.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalClinical Trials as TopicDiabetic FootEmollientsHumansTreatment OutcomeEmollientsDermatology therapyDiabetes complicationsEmollients

Identifiers

PMID28191040
PMCPMC5297015
OpenAlexW2587752948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.