Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38690005›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2024

Early intervention and care for Diabetic Foot Ulcers in Low and Middle Income Countries: Addressing challenges and exploring future strategies: A narrative review.

Niranjna Swaminathan, Wireko Andrew Awuah, Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj, Sakshi Roy, Tomas Ferreira, Favour Tope Adebusoye, Isma Farah Nurlisa Binti Ismail, Saleha Azeem, Toufik Abdul-Rahman, Marios Papadakis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Niranjna SwaminathanSchool of Medicine Taylor's University Selangor Malaysia.
Wireko Andrew AwuahFaculty of Medicine Sumy State University Sumy Ukraine.
Hareesha Rishab BharadwajFaculty of Biology Medicine and Health The University of Manchester Manchester UK.
Sakshi RoySchool of Medicine Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK.
Tomas FerreiraSchool of Clinical Medicine University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1465-522X
Favour Tope AdebusoyeFaculty of Medicine Sumy State University Sumy Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0001-5362-3920
Isma Farah Nurlisa Binti IsmailSchool of Medicine Taylor's University Selangor Malaysia.
Saleha AzeemFaculty of Medicine King Edward Medical University Lahore Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-1987-6048
Toufik Abdul-RahmanFaculty of Medicine Sumy State University Sumy Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0003-0153-287X
Marios PapadakisDepartment of Surgery II, University Hospital Witten-Herdecke, Heusnerstrasse 40 University of Witten-Herdecke Wuppertal Germany.
Sumy State University · UATaylor's University · MYKing Edward Medical University · PKQueen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Diabetic Foot Ulcers (DFUs) are a significant health concern, particularly in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). This review explores key strategies for managing DFUs in LMICs, including integrating podiatry, endocrinology, and wound care services, educating patients, promoting self-care, and preventive measures to reduce amputation rates. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on studies conducted in Low and Middle Income Countries to facilitate a qualitative analysis. The review examined the aetiology and risk factors to developing DFUs, clinical presentation, multidisciplinary management and evidence based interventions, challenges to the provision of care and future directions, all pertaining to DFUs in low and middle income countries. Results: The aetiology and risk factors contributing to the development of DFUs are complex and multifaceted. Factors such as limited access to health care, inadequate diabetes management, and socioeconomic disparities significantly influence the incidence of DFUs. Clinical presentation varies, with patients often presenting at advanced stages of the disease due to delayed or missed diagnoses. Multidisciplinary management, incorporating podiatry, endocrinology, and wound care services, has exhibited substantial promise in enhancing patient outcomes. Evidence-based interventions, including offloading techniques, wound debridement, and the use of advanced wound dressings, have proven effective in promoting ulcer healing. Conclusion: The burden of DFUs in LMICs requires comprehensive strategies. Integrating podiatry, endocrinology, and wound care services, along with patient education and self-care practices, is essential for reducing amputations and improving patients' quality of life. Regular follow-up and early detection are vital for effective DFU management, emphasizing the need for ongoing research and investment in LMIC health care infrastructure. Embracing these multidisciplinary, patient-centered approaches can effectively address the challenge of DFUs in LMICs, leading to better patient outcomes and improved quality of life.

Indexed as

diabetesfoot ulcerslower and middle‐income countrieswound care

Identifiers

PMID38690005
PMCPMC11058085
OpenAlexW4396517539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.