Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204487›Full record

SynthesisJournal of diabetes research2022

Effects of Special Therapeutic Footwear on the Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Bo Luo, Yuying Cai, Dawei Chen, Chun Wang, Hui Huang, Lihong Chen, Yun Gao, Xingwu Ran

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of diabetes research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Diabetic Capital Punishment: Time for Amnesty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    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.

Bo LuoInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Yuying CaiWest China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Dawei ChenInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Chun WangInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Hui HuangInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Lihong ChenInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.
Yun GaoInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7269-9741
Xingwu RanInnovation Center for Wound Repair, Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041 Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6634-1241

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To reduce diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) occurrence or recurrence, diabetic therapeutic footwear is widely recommended in clinical practice for at-risk patients. However, the effectiveness of therapeutic footwear is controversial. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine whether special therapeutic footwear could reduce the incidence of DFU. Method: We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and EMB databases) to identify eligible studies published from inception to June 11, 2021. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Efficacy (i.e., incidence of DFU) was explored using the R'meta' package (version 4.15-1). To obtain more robust results, the random-effects model and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method were selected to assess pooled data. Metaregression analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed by a visual inspection of funnel plots and the AS-Thompson test. Results: Eight RCTs with a total of 1,587 participants were identified from the search strategy. Compared with conventional footwear, special therapeutic footwear significantly reduced the incidence of DFU (RR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.28-0.84), with no evidence of publication bias ( Conclusion: Special therapeutic footwear with offloading properties is effective in reducing the incidence of DFU. However, the effect may decrease gradually over time. Despite undefined reasons, the optimal utility time and renewal frequency of special therapeutic footwear should be considered.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootHumansIncidenceRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID36204487
PMCPMC9530919

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.