Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29872752›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2018

A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient education in preventing and reducing the incidence or recurrence of adult diabetes foot ulcers (DFU).

P Adiewere, R B Gillis, S Imran Jiwani, A Meal, I Shaw, G G Adams

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

Article in Heliyon, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.6field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The Efficacy of Diabetic Foot Treatment in a "TOSF" Pattern: A Five-Year Retrospective Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P AdiewereThe University of Nottingham, School of Health Sciences, B Floor, South Block Link, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
R B GillisThe University of Nottingham, School of Health Sciences, B Floor, South Block Link, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
S Imran JiwaniThe University of Nottingham, School of Health Sciences, B Floor, South Block Link, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
A MealThe University of Nottingham, School of Health Sciences, B Floor, South Block Link, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
I ShawThe University of Nottingham, Faculty of Social Sciences, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
G G AdamsThe University of Nottingham, School of Health Sciences, B Floor, South Block Link, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) states that diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are associated with disability, death among patients with diabetes and substantial costs, if not prevented or managed effectively. The aim here is to examine the effectiveness of patient education in preventing and reducing the incidence or recurrence of adult DFU and amputation.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18+ who have diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2) or DFU. CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, Cochrane Library and Evidence-Based Nursing, National Library for Health, Medica and Google Scholar were searched. Only English language studies were considered. Databases were searched from their inception to September 2017.

findingsSix RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Only five RCTs reported on the incidence of DFU whilst only two reported on amputation rates. There was no advantage of combining different educational approaches in preventing/reducing DFU, relative risk (RR) of 0.50 (95%CI 0.21, 1.17) (P = 0.11). Two RCTs based on foot care education alone were compared with usual care; the result showed a non-significant effect (P = 0.57) with high heterogeneity of 77%.Analysis based on intensive versus brief educational approach showed a statistically reduced risk of incidence of DFU in the intervention group when compared to the control group; (RR, 0.37, 95%CI 0.14, 1.01) (P = 0.05) with high heterogeneity of 91%.

interpretationThe intensive educational intervention was associated with reduced incidence of DFU.

Indexed as

Health sciencesPublic health

Identifiers

PMID29872752
PMCPMC5986308
OpenAlexW2802150185

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.