| Literature DB >> 31394109 |
Yue Sun1, Ya Gao2, Ji Chen1, Hao Sun3, Yi-Tong Cai1, Long Ge4, Ya-Nan Li5, Junhua Zhang6, Jin-Hui Tian7.
Abstract
To systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on diabetes foot and assess the consistency of recommendations, quality of CPGs and to present an evidence-map for explicating research trends and gaps. We performed a literature search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, guideline databases and websites of diabetes society to include the diabetic CPGs. The basic information, recommendations for the diabetic foot, methodological quality and reporting quality of diabetic CPGs were exacted by the Excel. Four researchers evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of diabetic foot CPGs by AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. R3.5.1 software was used to create all bubble plots. A total of 22 diabetic CPGs were included, eight CPGs were from different professional diabetes societies. Recommendations on diabetic foot complications involve Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), Charcot neuropathy (CN) and Osteomyelitis (OM). Eight DFU diagnostic systems presented in 22 CPGs. According to the recommendations of diabetic CPGs, the treatment of DFU can be summarized in four major items; six recommendations on CN diagnosis and six recommendations on treatment of CN were consistent among studies. However, there were inconsistencies in three OM diagnosis recommendations and four OM treatment recommendations. Some recommendations in CPGs were not very specific and clear, and hence they were not reliable for OM diagnosis and treatment. Once these inconsistencies are resolved, validated, accurate and effective diagnosis and treatment of diabetes foot will lead to reduced costs and adverse complications. The results of this review add to our knowledge and promote the development of trustworthy CPGs on diabetes.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical practice guideline; Diabetes foot; Evidence mapping; International review
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31394109 DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.153956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolism ISSN: 0026-0495 Impact factor: 8.694