Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetes-related foot ulceration is essential to inform clinical practice. Well-conducted systematic reviews that synthesise evidence from all relevant trials offer the most robust evidence for decision-making. We conducted an overview to assess the comprehensiveness and utility of the available secondary evidence as a reliable source of robust estimates of effect with the aim of informing a cost-effective care pathway using an economic model. Here we report the details of the overview. [PROSPERO Database (CRD42016052324)]. METHODS: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Epistomonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Health Technology Assessment Journals Library were searched to 17th May 2021, without restrictions, for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive interventions in people with diabetes. The primary outcomes of interest were new primary or recurrent foot ulcers. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included reviews. FINDINGS: The overview identified 30 systematic reviews of patient education, footwear and off-loading, complex and other interventions. Many are poorly reported and have fundamental methodological shortcomings associated with increased risk of bias. Most concerns relate to vague inclusion criteria (60%), weak search or selection strategies (70%) and quality appraisal methods (53%) and inexpert conduct and interpretation of quantitative and narrative evidence syntheses (57%). The 30 reviews have collectively assessed 26 largely poor-quality RCTs with substantial overlap. INTERPRETATION: The majority of these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetic foot ulceration are at high risk of bias and fail to provide reliable evidence for decision-making. Adherence to the core principles of conducting and reporting systematic reviews is needed to improve the reliability of the evidence generated to inform clinical practice.

Risk assessments and structured care interventions for prevention of foot ulceration in diabetes: development and validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot ulcers give rise to considerable morbidity, generate a high monetary cost for health and social care services and precede the majority of diabetes-related lower extremity amputations. There are many clinical prediction rules in existence to assess risk of foot ulceration but few have been subject to validation. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to produce an evidence-based clinical pathway for risk assessment and management of the foot in people with diabetes mellitus to estimate cost-effective monitoring intervals and to perform cost-effectiveness analyses and a value-of-information analysis. DESIGN: We developed and validated a prognostic model using predictive modelling, calibration and discrimination techniques. An overview of systematic reviews already completed was followed by a review of randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent foot ulceration in diabetes mellitus. A review of the health economic literature was followed by the construction of an economic model, an analysis of the transitional probability of moving from one foot risk state to another, an assessment of cost-effectiveness and a value-of-information analysis. INTERVENTIONS: The effects of simple and complex interventions and different monitoring intervals for the clinical prediction rules were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome was the incidence of foot ulceration. We compared the new clinical prediction rules in conjunction with the most effective preventative interventions at different monitoring intervals with a 'treat-all' strategy. DATA SOURCES: Data from an electronic health record for 26,154 people with diabetes mellitus in one Scottish health board were used to estimate the monitoring interval. The Prediction Of Diabetic foot UlcerationS (PODUS) data set was used to develop and validate the clinical prediction rule. REVIEW METHODS: We searched for eligible randomised controlled trials of interventions using search strategies created for Ovid® (Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomised controlled trials in progress were identified via the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry and systematic reviews were identified via PROSPERO. Databases were searched from inception to February 2019. RESULTS: The clinical prediction rule was found to accurately assess the risk of foot ulceration. Digital infrared thermometry, complex interventions and therapeutic footwear with offloading devices were found to be effective in preventing foot ulcers. The risk of developing a foot ulcer did not change over time for most people. We found that interventions to prevent foot ulceration may be cost-effective but there is uncertainty about this. Digital infrared thermometry and therapeutic footwear with offloading devices may be cost-effective when used to treat all people with diabetes mellitus regardless of their ulcer risk. LIMITATIONS: The threats to the validity of the results in some randomised controlled trials in the review and the large number of missing data in the electronic health record mean that there is uncertainty in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that interventions to prevent foot ulceration are effective but it is not clear who would benefit most from receiving the interventions. The ulceration risk does not change over an 8-year period for most people with diabetes mellitus. A change in the monitoring interval from annually to every 2 years for those at low risk would be acceptable. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Improving the completeness of electronic health records and sharing data would help improve our knowledge about the most clinically effective and cost-effective approaches to prevent foot ulceration in diabetes mellitus. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052324. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with diabetes sometimes have problems with their feet that can become serious and make getting around harder and life less enjoyable. We have developed a test based on a simple score to find out a person's risk of getting a foot ulcer. We also wanted to know how often the test needs to be done. People who have been tested and learn that they might go on to have foot problems rightly expect to be given treatment that stops the problem happening in the first place. In this project, we read many written reports about the best treatments to prevent foot ulcers. We found that some things can prevent foot ulcers, such as wearing special shoes and insoles, taking the temperature of the skin of the foot and resting when the temperature rises, and receiving specialist care from diabetes foot care teams. However, we also looked at the costs of the test and treatments and found that some treatments are better value for money than others. By using people's health data from NHS computers, we discovered that very few people with diabetes develop a worse risk score for foot ulcers as time goes on, and it seems that being tested every year is not necessary for everyone. New clinical trials might help to improve foot health for people with diabetes, but if all of the researchers who have collected data from people in clinical trials shared their data it would be possible to find out more about who will gain most from these treatments without spending a lot on new research. It is clear that better input of patients' health data into NHS computers will benefit diabetes research in the future.

Ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of lower limb peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower limb is common, with prevalence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease estimated at 13% in the over 50 age group. Symptomatic PAD affects about 5% of individuals in Western populations between the ages of 55 and 74 years. The most common initial symptom of PAD is muscle pain on exercise that is relieved by rest and is attributed to reduced lower limb blood flow due to atherosclerotic disease (intermittent claudication). The ankle brachial index (ABI) is widely used by a variety of healthcare professionals, including specialist nurses, physicians, surgeons and podiatrists working in primary and secondary care settings, to assess signs and symptoms of PAD. As the ABI test is non-invasive and inexpensive and is in widespread clinical use, a systematic review of its diagnostic accuracy in people presenting with leg pain suggestive of PAD is highly relevant to routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the ankle brachial index (ABI) - also known as the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) - for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease in people who experience leg pain on walking that is alleviated by rest. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out searches of the following databases in August 2013: MEDLINE (Ovid SP),Embase (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (Bireme), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database in The Cochrane Library, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, the British Library Zetoc Conference search and Medion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional studies of ABI in which duplex ultrasonography or angiography was used as the reference standard. We also included cross-sectional or diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) cohort studies consisting of both prospective and retrospective studies.Participants were adults presenting with leg pain on walking that was relieved by rest, who were tested in primary care settings or secondary care settings (hospital outpatients only) and who did not have signs or symptoms of critical limb ischaemia (rest pain, ischaemic ulcers or gangrene).The index test was ABI, also called the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) or the Ankle Arm Index (AAI), which was performed with a hand-held doppler or oscillometry device to detect ankle vessels. We included data collected via sphygmomanometers (both manual and aneroid) and digital equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently replicated data extraction by using a standard form, which included an assessment of study quality, and resolved disagreements by discussion. Two review authors extracted participant-level data when available to populate 2×2 contingency tables (true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives).After a pilot phase involving two review authors working independently, we used the methodological quality assessment tool the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which incorporated our review question - along with a flow diagram to aid reviewers' understanding of the conduct of the study when necessary and an assessment of risk of bias and applicability judgements. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 17,055 records identified through searches of databases. We obtained 746 full-text articles and assessed them for relevance. We scrutinised 49 studies to establish their eligibility for inclusion in the review and excluded 48, primarily because participants were not patients presenting solely with exertional leg pain, investigators used no reference standard or investigators used neither angiography nor duplex ultrasonography as the reference standard. We excluded most studies for more than one reason.Only one study met the eligibility criteria and provided limb-level accuracy data from just 85 participants (158 legs). This prospective study compared the manual doppler method of obtaining an ABI (performed by untrained personnel) with the automated oscillometric method. Limb-level data, as reported by the study, indicated that the accuracy of the ABI in detecting significant arterial disease on angiography is superior when stenosis is present in the femoropopliteal vessels, with sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93% to 99%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 67% to 95%) for oscillometric ABI, and sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 89% to 97%) and specificity of 56% (95% CI 33% to 70%) for doppler ABI. The ABI threshold was not reported. Investigators attributed the lower specificity for doppler to the fact that a tibial or dorsalis pedis pulse could not be detected by doppler in 12 of 27 legs with normal vessels or non-significant lesions. The superiority of the oscillometric (automated) method for obtaining an ABI reading over the manual method with a doppler probe used by inexperienced operators may be a clinically important finding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence about the accuracy of the ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of PAD in people with leg pain on exercise that is alleviated by rest is sparse. The single study included in our review provided only limb-level data from a few participants. Well-designed cross-sectional studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of ABI in patients presenting with early symptoms of peripheral arterial disease in all healthcare settings. Another systematic review of existing studies assessing the use of ABI in alternative patient groups, including asymptomatic, high-risk patients, is required.

The use of fibrin sealant during non-emergency surgery: a systematic review of evidence of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Fibrin sealants are used in different types of surgery to prevent the accumulation of post-operative fluid (seroma) or blood (haematoma) or to arrest haemorrhage (bleeding). However, there is uncertainty around the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of fibrin sealants in non-emergency surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)] were searched from inception to May 2015. The websites of regulatory bodies (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration) were also searched to identify evidence of harms. REVIEW METHODS: This review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using any type of fibrin sealant compared with standard care in non-emergency surgery in adults. The primary outcome was risk of developing seroma and haematoma. Only RCTs were used to inform clinical effectiveness and both RCTs and observational studies were used for the assessment of harms related to the use of fibrin sealant. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and validated by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for adverse events for observational studies. A fixed-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 186 RCTs and eight observational studies across 14 surgical specialties and five reports from the regulatory bodies. Most RCTs were judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were inappropriately reported in observational studies. Meta-analysis across non-emergency surgical specialties did not show a statistically significant difference in the risk of seroma for fibrin sealants versus standard care in 32 RCTs analysed [n = 3472, odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.04; p = 0.13; I2 = 12.7%], but a statistically significant benefit was found on haematoma development in 24 RCTs (n = 2403, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Adverse events related to fibrin sealant use were reported in 10 RCTs and eight observational studies across surgical specialties, and 22 RCTs explicitly stated that there were no adverse events. One RCT reported a single death but no other study reported mortality or any serious adverse events. Five regulatory body reports noted death from air emboli associated with fibrin sprays. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to provide a detailed evaluation of individual RCTs in their specific contexts because of the limited resources that were available for this research. In addition, the number of RCTs that were identified made it impractical to conduct independent data extraction by two reviewers in the time available. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of fibrin sealants does not appear to vary according to surgical procedures with regard to reducing the risk of seroma or haematoma. Surgeons should note the potential risk of gas embolism if spray application of fibrin sealants is used and not to exceed the recommended pressure and spraying distance. Future research should be carried out in surgery specialties for which only limited data were found, including neurological, gynaecological, oral and maxillofacial, urology, colorectal and orthopaedics surgery (for any outcome); breast surgery and upper gastrointestinal (development of haematoma); and cardiothoracic heart or lung surgery (reoperation rates). In addition, studies need to use adequate sample sizes, to blind participants and outcome assessors, and to follow reporting guidelines. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020710. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS).

BACKGROUND: Annual foot risk assessment of people with diabetes is recommended in national and international clinical guidelines. At present, these are consensus based and use only a proportion of the available evidence. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a systematic review of individual patient data (IPD) to identify the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified from searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE. REVIEW METHODS: The electronic search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases created during an aggregate systematic review of predictive factors for foot ulceration in diabetes were updated and rerun to January 2013. One reviewer applied the IPD review eligibility criteria to the full-text articles of the studies identified in our literature search and also to all studies excluded from our aggregate systematic review to ensure that we did not miss eligible IPD. A second reviewer applied the eligibility criteria to a 10% random sample of the abstract search yield to check that no relevant material was missed. This review includes exposure variables (risk factors) only from individuals who were free of foot ulceration at the time of study entry and who had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (either type 1 or type 2). The outcome variable was incident ulceration. RESULTS: Our search identified 16 cohort studies and we obtained anonymised IPD for 10. These data were collected from more than 16,000 people with diabetes worldwide and reanalysed by us. One data set was kept for independent validation. The data sets contributing IPD covered a range of temporal, geographical and clinical settings. We therefore selected random-effects meta-analysis, which assumes not that all the estimates from each study are estimates of the same underlying true value, but rather that the estimates belong to the same distribution. We selected candidate variables for meta-analysis using specific criteria. After univariate meta-analyses, the most clinically important predictors were identified by an international steering committee for inclusion in the primary, multivariable meta-analysis. Age, sex, duration of diabetes, monofilaments and pulses were considered most prognostically important. Meta-analyses based on data from the entire IPD population found that an inability to feel a 10-g monofilament [odds ratio (OR) 3.184, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.654 to 3.82], at least one absent pedal pulse (OR 1.968, 95% CI 1.624 to 2.386), a longer duration of a diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.024, 95% CI 1.011 to 1.036) and a previous history of ulceration (OR 6.589, 95% CI 2.488 to 17.45) were all predictive of risk. Female sex was protective (OR 0.743, 95% CI 0.598 to 0.922). LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using a one-step approach because we were unable to procure copies of one of the data sets and instead accessed data via Safe Haven. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review identify risk assessment procedures that can reliably inform national and international diabetes clinical guideline foot risk assessment procedures. The evidence from a large sample of patients in worldwide settings show that the use of a 10-g monofilament or one absent pedal pulse will identify those at moderate or intermediate risk of foot ulceration, and a history of foot ulcers or lower-extremity amputation is sufficient to identify those at high risk. We propose the development of a clinical prediction rule (CPR) from our existing model using the following predictor variables: insensitivity to a 10-g monofilament, absent pedal pulses and a history of ulceration or lower-extremities amputations. This CPR could replace the many tests, signs and symptoms that patients currently have measured using equipment that is either costly or difficult to use. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001841. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.