ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the time delays in the management of diabetic foot and explore influencing factors of these delays and potential outcomes. METHODS: The researchers searched several electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang, CBM and VIP) for English and Chinese studies that examined time delays in the management pathway of diabetic foot. Two authors independently screened and extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Health Research and Quality checklist. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: The review included 28 articles, comprising 20 cohort studies and 8 cross-sectional studies, that met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 14 were deemed of high quality. The median times from symptom onset to primary health care or specialist care varied from 3 to 46.69 days. The median delay in referral by primary care specialists ranged from 7 to 31 days, and subsequent median times to definitive treatment ranged from 6.2 to 56 days. Multiple complex factors were found to contribute to these delays, including patient demographics (older age, lower education level and income level) and poor patient health-seeking behaviors (inaccurate self-treatment, incorrect recognition and interpretation of symptoms), inaccurate assessment or initial treatment by health primary professionals, complex referral pathways and clinical characteristics of diabetic foot (number of foot ulcers, Wagner grade scale, and hemoglobin A1c index). Negative outcomes associated with these delays included increased risk of major amputation and mortality, decreased wound healing rate, prolonged hospital stay, and increased hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: Time delays in the diabetic foot management pathway were both common and serious, contributing to negative health outcomes for patients with diabetic foot. Many complex factors related to patient's poor patient health-seeking behaviors, health system, and clinical characteristics of diabetic foot are responsible for these delays. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new strategies for standard referral practices and strengthen patient awareness of seeking care.
ABSTRACT
Aims: To evaluate the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic reviews (SRs)/metaanalyses (MAs) of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Methods: We searched and retrieved SRs and MAs on the application of ADM for DFU from PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and VIP databases. We employed AMSTAR 2 to assess methodological quality, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to grade, and the strength of evidence of included SRs/MAs. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a re-MA of the primary RCTs. Results: A total of 7 SRs/MAs were included. Results from the AMSTAR 2 evaluation revealed a low overall quality; the GRADE system showed that the evidence was of moderate to very low quality. Our re-MA showed that ADM was superior to standard of care (SOC), with regards to complete wound healing rate at 12 weeks (RR = 1.74, 95% CI:1.34-2.25, P < .0001), complete wound healing rate at 16 weeks (RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26-1.77, P ï¼ .00001); healing time (MD = -2.06, 95% CI: -2.57 to -1.54, P < .00001) and adverse events (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.49-0.80, P = .0002). However, a consensus has not yet been reached between ADM and SOC groups with regard to outcome indicators of the reduction of ulcer area and quality of life; and subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the xenograft ADM and SOC groups (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95-1.93, P = .09) at 12 weeks. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that ADM is more effective than the standard of care in the treatment of DFU, particularly for full-thickness, noninfected, and nonischemic foot ulcers, but with low evidence quality. Therefore, the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and prudently, and the role of ADM in DFU needs further exploration.
