Cargando…
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 conduct...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9583498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36266628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y |
_version_ | 1784813084146139136 |
---|---|
author | Crawford, Fay Nicolson, Donald J. Amanna, Aparna E. Smith, Marie |
author_facet | Crawford, Fay Nicolson, Donald J. Amanna, Aparna E. Smith, Marie |
author_sort | Crawford, Fay |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9583498 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95834982022-10-21 Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews Crawford, Fay Nicolson, Donald J. Amanna, Aparna E. Smith, Marie BMC Med Res Methodol Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y. BioMed Central 2022-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9583498/ /pubmed/36266628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Crawford, Fay Nicolson, Donald J. Amanna, Aparna E. Smith, Marie Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title | Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title_full | Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title_fullStr | Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title_short | Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
title_sort | reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9583498/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36266628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT crawfordfay reliabilityoftheevidencetoguidedecisionmakinginfootulcerpreventionindiabetesanoverviewofsystematicreviews AT nicolsondonaldj reliabilityoftheevidencetoguidedecisionmakinginfootulcerpreventionindiabetesanoverviewofsystematicreviews AT amannaaparnae reliabilityoftheevidencetoguidedecisionmakinginfootulcerpreventionindiabetesanoverviewofsystematicreviews AT smithmarie reliabilityoftheevidencetoguidedecisionmakinginfootulcerpreventionindiabetesanoverviewofsystematicreviews |