ReviewDiabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy2026
Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetic Foot Management: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX Instruments.
Review in Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality and the excellence of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) management, and to synthesize their clinical treatment recommendations. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and guideline databases was conducted to identify DFU guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 1, 2025. The quality of included guidelines was appraised by reviewers using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Domain scores are presented as median (interquartile range). Recommendations for DFU clinical treatment were synthesized, and the supporting evidence was graded using the OCEBM system. Results: Fifteen CPGs were included (6high-quality, 9moderate-quality). The highest AGREE II domain score was for Editorial Independence (100.00% [97.22-100.00%]), followed by Scope and Purpose (96.30% [88.89-100.00%]), Clarity of Presentation (96.30% [92.59-100.00%]), Rigor of Development (75.69% [41.67-93.06%]), and Stakeholder Involvement (74.07% [62.96-83.33%]). The lowest scoring domain was Applicability (52.78% [36.11-59.72%]). The lowest AGREE-REX score was for Values and Preferences (47.22% [43.06-52.78%]), while Clinical Applicability (79.63% [66.67-81.48%]) and Implementability (77.78% [72.22-80.56%]) scored respectably. Seventeen key DFU treatment recommendations were synthesized, mostly Grade B recommendations supported by moderate-quality evidence. Conclusion: Existing DFU guidelines are developed using systematic methods but show limitations in applicability, stakeholder involvement, and rigor of development. The quality of recommendations is inconsistent, with notably low scores in the domain of values and preferences. Enhancing these aspects and improving the underlying evidence quality are crucial strategies for future guideline development and implementation.
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.