Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34861898›Full record

GuidelineJournal of foot and ankle research2021

Australian guideline on wound classification of diabetes-related foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

Emma J Hamilton, Joanna Scheepers, Hayley Ryan, Byron M Perrin, James Charles, Jane Cheney, Stephen M Twigg, Australian Diabetes-related Foot Disease Guidelines & Pathways Project

Open access · goldAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Emma J HamiltonDepartment of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Australia.
Joanna ScheepersSt John of God Midland Public and Private Hospitals, Midland, WA, Australia.
Hayley RyanWounds Australia Limited, WoundRescue Pty Ltd, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Byron M PerrinLa Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
James CharlesNational Indigenous Knowledge's, Education, Research and Innovation Institute, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Jane CheneyDiabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephen M TwiggDepartment of Endocrinology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. Stephen.twigg@sydney.edu.au.
Australian Diabetes-related Foot Disease Guidelines & Pathways Project
Deakin University · AUDiabetes Australia · AUIP Australia · AULa Trobe University · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUSt John of God Hospital · AUUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWound classification systems are useful tools to characterise diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU) and are utilised for the purpose of clinical assessment, to promote effective communication between health professionals, and to support clinical audit and benchmarking. Australian guidelines regarding wound classification in patients with DFU are outdated. We aimed to adapt existing international guidelines for wound classification to develop new evidence-based Australian guidelines for wound classification in people with diabetes and DFU.

methodsRecommended NHRMC procedures were followed to adapt suitable International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines on wound classification to the Australian health context. Five IWGDF wound classification recommendations were evaluated and assessed according to the ADAPTE and GRADE systems. We compared our judgements with IWGDF judgements to decide if recommendations should be adopted, adapted or excluded in an Australian context. We re-evaluated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation ratings, provided justifications for the recommendation and outlined any special considerations for implementation, subgroups, monitoring and future research in an Australian setting.

resultsAfter the five recommendations from the IWGDF 2019 guidelines on the classification of DFUs were evaluated by the panel, two were adopted and three were adapted to be more suitable for Australia. The main reasons for adapting, were to align the recommendations to existing Australian standards of care, especially in specialist settings, to maintain consistency with existing recommendations for documentation, audit and benchmarking and to be more appropriate, acceptable and applicable to an Australian context. In Australia, we recommend the use of the SINBAD system as a minimum standard to document the characteristics of a DFU for the purposes of communication among health professionals and for regional/national/international audit. In contrast to the IWGDF who recommend against usage, in Australia we recommend caution in the use of existing wound classification systems to provide an individual prognosis for a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer.

conclusionsWe have developed new guidelines for wound classification for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer that are appropriate and applicable for use across diverse care settings and geographical locations in Australia.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootFoot UlcerAustraliaEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PersonnelHumansAdaptAdoptDiabetes-related foot ulcersGuidelinesWound classification

Identifiers

PMID34861898
PMCPMC8641146
OpenAlexW3215646678

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.