Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37727285›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare2023

Data-driven digital health technologies in the remote clinical care of diabetic foot ulcers: a scoping review.

Joel Lazarus, Iulia Cioroianu, Beate Ehrhardt, David Gurevich, Lisa Kreusser, Benjamin Metcalfe, Prasad Nishtala, Ezio Preatoni, Tamsin H Sharp

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Emerging technologies for the management of diabetic foot ulceration: a review.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2024
    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

9 authors.

Joel LazarusDepartment of Social and Policy Studies, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Iulia CioroianuDepartment of Politics, Languages and International Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Beate EhrhardtInstitute for Mathematical Innovation, Languages and International Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
David GurevichDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Lisa KreusserDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Benjamin MetcalfeDepartment of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Prasad NishtalaDepartment of Life Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Design, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Ezio PreatoniDepartment for Health, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Tamsin H SharpDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The availability and effectiveness of Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) to support clinicians, empower patients, and generate economic savings for national healthcare systems are growing rapidly. Of particular promise is the capacity of DHTs to autonomously facilitate remote monitoring and treatment. Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFUs) are characterised by high rates of infection, amputation, mortality, and healthcare costs. With clinical outcomes contingent on activities that can be readily monitored, DFUs present a promising focus for the application of remote DHTs. Objective: This scoping review has been conducted as a first step toward ascertaining fthe data-related challenges and opportunities for the development of more comprehensive, integrated, and individualised sense/act DHTs. We review the latest developments in the application of DHTs to the remote care of DFUs. We cover the types of DHTs in development and their features, technological readiness, and scope of clinical testing. Eligibility criteria: Only peer-reviewed original experimental and observational studies, case series and qualitative studies were included in literature searches. All reviews and manuscripts presenting pre-trial prototype technologies were excluded. Methods: An initial search of three databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Scopus) generated 1,925 English-language papers for screening. 388 papers were assessed as eligible for full-text screening by the review team. 81 manuscripts were found to meet the eligibility criteria. Results: Only 19% of studies incorporated multiple DHTs. We categorised 56% of studies as 'Treatment-Manual', i.e. studies involving technologies aimed at treatment requiring manual data generation, and 26% as 'Prevention-Autonomous', i.e. studies of technologies generating data autonomously through wearable sensors aimed at ulcer prevention through patient behavioural change. Only 10% of studies involved more ambitious 'Treatment-Autonomous' interventions. We found that studies generally reported high levels of patient adherence and satisfaction. Conclusions: Our findings point to a major potential role for DHTs in remote personalised medical management of DFUs. However, larger studies are required to assess their impact. Here, we see opportunities for developing much larger, more comprehensive, and integrated monitoring and decision support systems with the potential to address the disease in a more complete context by capturing and integrating data from multiple sources from subjective and objective measurements.

Indexed as

data sciencediabetesdiabetic foot ulcersdigital healthmachine learningremote monitoringtelemedicinewearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID37727285
PMCPMC10505804

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.