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.

Preventing foot ulceration in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analyses of RCT data.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Foot ulceration is a serious complication for people with diabetes that results in high levels of morbidity for individuals and significant costs for health and social care systems. Nineteen systematic reviews of preventative interventions have been published, but none provides a reliable numerical summary of treatment effects. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence from RCTs and, where possible, conduct meta-analyses to make the best possible use of the currently available data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of preventative interventions for foot ulceration. OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to February 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to October 2018. RCTs of interventions to prevent foot ulcers in people with diabetes who were free from foot ulceration at trial entry were included. Two independent reviewers read the full-text articles and extracted data. The quality of trial reporting was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome of foot ulceration was summarised using pooled relative risks in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs of eight interventions were eligible for analysis. One trial of digital silicone devices (RR 0.07 [95% CI 0.01, 0.55]) and meta-analyses of dermal infrared thermometry (RR 0.41 [95% CI 0.19, 0.86]), complex interventions (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.38, 0.90], and custom-made footwear and offloading insoles (RR 0.53 [95% CI 0.33, 0.85]) showed beneficial effects for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Four interventions were identified as being effective in preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes, but uncertainty remains about what works and who is most likely to benefit.

A qualitative evaluation of occupational therapy-led work rehabilitation for people with inflammatory arthritis: Patients' views.

INTRODUCTION: This qualitative study, nested in a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial, explored the views of working people with inflammatory arthritis on the impact of a work rehabilitation programme received. METHOD: Thirty-two participants, drawn from the 55 participants in the associated randomised controlled trial, were recruited from secondary care in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted at six (n = 32) and nine months follow-up (n = 31). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using a constant comparative approach, under the theoretical framework of critical realism. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes emerged: (1) intervention group participants valued the work rehabilitation programme received, and highlighted the benefits of occupational therapy; (2) control group participants reported no benefits in relation to the written work advice pack, and lacked future aspirations to stay employed; (3) the majority of participants reported not reading the written work advice pack provided, which was the only work advice received by the control group. CONCLUSION: Working people with inflammatory arthritis highly valued the practical support received from the therapists, and emphasised the value of the therapeutic relationship in the rehabilitation process. A tailor-made work rehabilitation programme, which incorporates cognitive-behavioural strategies into patient education, may help to reduce work instability in people with inflammatory arthritis, and increase their perceived self-efficacy.