ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024
A multidisciplinary Delphi consensus to define evidence-based quality indicators for diabetic foot ulcer care.
Article in European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundValid measures to assess quality of care delivered to patients with diabetes suffering from diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) are scarce. This study aimed to achieve consensus on relevant and feasible quality indicators (QIs) among stakeholders involved in DFU care and was conducted as the second part of a Belgian QI selection study that sought to identify QIs for DFU care.
methodsA stakeholder panel, including caregivers from primary care and specialized disciplines active in diabetic foot care as well as a patient organization representative, was recruited. By using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, stakeholders were asked to rate a list of 42 candidate evidence-based indicators for appropriateness through a 9-point Likert scale. QIs were classified based on the median ratings and the disagreement index, calculated by the inter-percentile range adjusted for symmetry.
resultsAt the end of a three-phase process, 17 QIs were judged as appropriate. Among them, five were not previously described, covering the following topics: integration of wound care specialty in the multidisciplinary team, systematic evaluation of the nutritional status of the patient, administration of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering medication and protocolized care (implementation of care and prevention management protocols).
conclusionsThe identified evidence-based QIs provide an assessment tool to evaluate and monitor quality of care delivered to DFU patients. Future research should focus on their complementarity with the existing QIs and their implementation in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.