Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression
Background Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%–34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have se...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health Technologies |
| Online Access: | https://sit.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000081.full |
| _version_ | 1797215328033308672 |
|---|---|
| author | Joanna Moore Kartik Iyer Tania B Huedo-Medina David Dayya Owen O'Neill Nusrat Habib |
| author_facet | Joanna Moore Kartik Iyer Tania B Huedo-Medina David Dayya Owen O'Neill Nusrat Habib |
| author_sort | Joanna Moore |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%–34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.Objectives Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?Study eligibility criteria All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.Data sources Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.Participants and interventions Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.Main Outcomes Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.Study selection and analysis Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.Results 10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.Limitations The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.Discussion/Conclusion Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.Implications Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T11:28:19Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f611af9361d543749e97c98504b1ef8d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2631-4940 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T11:28:19Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health Technologies |
| spelling | doaj.art-f611af9361d543749e97c98504b1ef8d2024-04-10T12:50:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health Technologies2631-49402022-07-014110.1136/bmjsit-2021-000081Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regressionJoanna Moore0Kartik Iyer1Tania B Huedo-Medina2David Dayya3Owen O'Neill4Nusrat Habib5Department of Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut, USADepartment of Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut, USADepartment of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USADivision of Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, Department of Surgery, Phelps Hospital Northwell Health, Sleepy Hollow, New York, USADivision of Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, Department of Surgery, Phelps Hospital Northwell Health, Sleepy Hollow, New York, USADepartment of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USABackground Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%–34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.Objectives Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?Study eligibility criteria All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.Data sources Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.Participants and interventions Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.Main Outcomes Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.Study selection and analysis Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.Results 10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.Limitations The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.Discussion/Conclusion Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.Implications Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.https://sit.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000081.full |
| spellingShingle | Joanna Moore Kartik Iyer Tania B Huedo-Medina David Dayya Owen O'Neill Nusrat Habib Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression BMJ Surgery, Interventions, & Health Technologies |
| title | Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
| title_full | Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
| title_fullStr | Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
| title_full_unstemmed | Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
| title_short | Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications – a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
| title_sort | debridement of diabetic foot ulcers public health and clinical implications a systematic review meta analysis and meta regression |
| url | https://sit.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000081.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joannamoore debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT kartikiyer debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT taniabhuedomedina debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT daviddayya debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT owenoneill debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT nusrathabib debridementofdiabeticfootulcerspublichealthandclinicalimplicationsasystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression |