Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676695›Full record

GuidelineJournal of foot and ankle research2022

Australian guideline on management of diabetes-related foot infection: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

Robert J Commons, James Charles, Jane Cheney, Sarah A Lynar, Matthew Malone, Edward Raby, Australian Diabetes-related Foot Disease Guidelines & Pathways Project

Open access · goldAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Robert J CommonsGlobal Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. robert.commons@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3359-5632
James CharlesFirst Peoples Health Unit, Faculty of Health Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Jane CheneyDiabetes Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Sarah A LynarGlobal Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Matthew MaloneSouth West Sydney Limb Preservation and Wound Research, South Western Sydney LHD, Liverpool, Sydney, Australia.
Edward RabyInfectious Diseases Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Australian Diabetes-related Foot Disease Guidelines & Pathways Project
Charles Darwin University · AUCamden and Campbelltown Hospitals · AUDiabetes Australia · AUGriffith University · AURoyal Perth Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes-related foot infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality, both globally and in Australia. There is a need for up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to ensure optimal management of patients with diabetes-related foot infections. We aimed to identify and adapt high quality international guidelines to the Australian context to become the new Australian evidence-based guideline for people with a diabetes-related foot infection.

methodsFollowing Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) procedures we identified the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines as suitable for adaptation to the Australian context. Guidelines were screened, assessed and judged by an expert panel for the Australian context using the guideline adaptation frameworks ADAPTE and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Judgements led to recommendations being adopted, adapted or excluded, with additional consideration regarding their implementation, monitoring and future research for the Australian context. Clinical pathways were then developed to assist implementation.

resultsOf 36 original diabetes-related foot infection IWGDF sub-recommendations, 31 were adopted, four were adapted and one was excluded. Adaption was primarily undertaken due to differences or clarification of the sub-recommendations' intended population. One sub-recommendation was excluded due to substantial differences in judgements between the panel and IWGDF and unacceptable heterogeneity of the target population. Therefore, we developed 35 evidence-based sub-recommendations for the Australian context that should guide best practice diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infection in Australia. Additionally, we incorporated these sub-recommendations into two clinical pathways to assist Australian health professionals to implement these evidence-based sub-recommendations into clinical practice. The six guidelines and the full protocol can be found at: https://www.diabetesfeetaustralia.org/new-guidelines/ .

conclusionsA new national guideline for the diagnosis and management of people with diabetes-related foot infections were successfully developed for the Australian context. In combination with simplified clinical pathway tools they provide an evidence-based framework to ensure best management of individuals with diabetes-related foot infections across Australia and highlight considerations for implementation and monitoring.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootFoot DiseasesAustraliaEvidence-Based MedicineHumansDiabetes-related foot diseaseDiabetes-related foot infectionGuidelines; antibioticSurgery

Identifiers

PMID35676695
PMCPMC9178854
OpenAlexW4282039958

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.