The 10-year follow-up of a community-based cohort of people with diabetes: The incidence of foot ulceration and death.

BACKGROUND: Identifying people with diabetes who are likely to experience a foot ulcer is an important part of preventative care. Many cohort studies report predictive models for foot ulcerations and for people with diabetes, but reports of long-term outcomes are scarce. AIM: We aimed to develop a predictive model for foot ulceration in diabetes using a range of potential risk factors with a follow-up of 10 years after recruitment. A new foot ulceration was the outcome of interest and death was the secondary outcome of interest. DESIGN: A 10-year follow-up cohort study. METHODS: 1193 people with a diagnosis of diabetes who took part in a study in 2006-2007 were invited to participate in a 10-year follow-up. We developed a prognostic model for the incidence of incident foot ulcerations using a survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards model. We also utilised survival analysis Kaplan-Meier curves, and relevant tests, to assess the association between the predictor variables for foot ulceration and death. RESULTS: At 10-year follow-up, 41% of the original study population had died and more than 18% had developed a foot ulcer. The predictive factors for foot ulceration were an inability to feel a 10 g monofilament or vibration from a tuning fork, previous foot ulceration and duration of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic model shows an increased risk of ulceration for those with previous history of foot ulcerations, insensitivity to a 10 g monofilament, a tuning fork and duration of diabetes. The incidence of foot ulceration at 10-year follow-up was 18%; however, the risk of death for this community-based population was far greater than the risk of foot ulceration.

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.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for development of diabetic foot ulceration: an analysis of data from five cohort studies.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for foot ulceration in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Development of a CPR using individual participant data from four international cohort studies identified by systematic review, with validation in a fifth study. Development cohorts were from primary and secondary care foot clinics in Europe and the USA (n=8255, adults over 18 years old, with diabetes, ulcer free at recruitment). Using data from monofilament testing, presence/absence of pulses, and participant history of previous ulcer and/or amputation, we developed a simple CPR to predict who will develop a foot ulcer within 2 years of initial assessment and validated it in a fifth study (n=3324). The CPR's performance was assessed with C-statistics, calibration slopes, calibration-in-the-large, and a net benefit analysis. RESULTS: CPR scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 had a risk of ulcer within 2 years of 2.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 3.9%), 6.0% (95% CI 3.5% to 9.5%), 14.0% (95% CI 8.5% to 21.3%), 29.2% (95% CI 19.2% to 41.0%), and 51.1% (95% CI 37.9% to 64.1%), respectively. In the validation dataset, calibration-in-the-large was -0.374 (95% CI -0.561 to -0.187) and calibration slope 1.139 (95% CI 0.994 to 1.283). The C-statistic was 0.829 (95% CI 0.790 to 0.868). The net benefit analysis suggested that people with a CPR score of 1 or more (risk of ulceration 6.0% or more) should be referred for treatment. CONCLUSION: The clinical prediction rule is simple, using routinely obtained data, and could help prevent foot ulcers by redirecting care to patients with scores of 1 or above. It has been validated in a community setting, and requires further validation in secondary care settings.

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.

Ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of lower limb peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower limb is common, with prevalence of both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease estimated at 13% in the over 50 age group. Symptomatic PAD affects about 5% of individuals in Western populations between the ages of 55 and 74 years. The most common initial symptom of PAD is muscle pain on exercise that is relieved by rest and is attributed to reduced lower limb blood flow due to atherosclerotic disease (intermittent claudication). The ankle brachial index (ABI) is widely used by a variety of healthcare professionals, including specialist nurses, physicians, surgeons and podiatrists working in primary and secondary care settings, to assess signs and symptoms of PAD. As the ABI test is non-invasive and inexpensive and is in widespread clinical use, a systematic review of its diagnostic accuracy in people presenting with leg pain suggestive of PAD is highly relevant to routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the ankle brachial index (ABI) - also known as the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) - for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease in people who experience leg pain on walking that is alleviated by rest. SEARCH METHODS: We carried out searches of the following databases in August 2013: MEDLINE (Ovid SP),Embase (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (Bireme), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database in The Cochrane Library, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, the British Library Zetoc Conference search and Medion. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional studies of ABI in which duplex ultrasonography or angiography was used as the reference standard. We also included cross-sectional or diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) cohort studies consisting of both prospective and retrospective studies.Participants were adults presenting with leg pain on walking that was relieved by rest, who were tested in primary care settings or secondary care settings (hospital outpatients only) and who did not have signs or symptoms of critical limb ischaemia (rest pain, ischaemic ulcers or gangrene).The index test was ABI, also called the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) or the Ankle Arm Index (AAI), which was performed with a hand-held doppler or oscillometry device to detect ankle vessels. We included data collected via sphygmomanometers (both manual and aneroid) and digital equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently replicated data extraction by using a standard form, which included an assessment of study quality, and resolved disagreements by discussion. Two review authors extracted participant-level data when available to populate 2×2 contingency tables (true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives).After a pilot phase involving two review authors working independently, we used the methodological quality assessment tool the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), which incorporated our review question - along with a flow diagram to aid reviewers' understanding of the conduct of the study when necessary and an assessment of risk of bias and applicability judgements. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 17,055 records identified through searches of databases. We obtained 746 full-text articles and assessed them for relevance. We scrutinised 49 studies to establish their eligibility for inclusion in the review and excluded 48, primarily because participants were not patients presenting solely with exertional leg pain, investigators used no reference standard or investigators used neither angiography nor duplex ultrasonography as the reference standard. We excluded most studies for more than one reason.Only one study met the eligibility criteria and provided limb-level accuracy data from just 85 participants (158 legs). This prospective study compared the manual doppler method of obtaining an ABI (performed by untrained personnel) with the automated oscillometric method. Limb-level data, as reported by the study, indicated that the accuracy of the ABI in detecting significant arterial disease on angiography is superior when stenosis is present in the femoropopliteal vessels, with sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93% to 99%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 67% to 95%) for oscillometric ABI, and sensitivity of 95% (95% CI 89% to 97%) and specificity of 56% (95% CI 33% to 70%) for doppler ABI. The ABI threshold was not reported. Investigators attributed the lower specificity for doppler to the fact that a tibial or dorsalis pedis pulse could not be detected by doppler in 12 of 27 legs with normal vessels or non-significant lesions. The superiority of the oscillometric (automated) method for obtaining an ABI reading over the manual method with a doppler probe used by inexperienced operators may be a clinically important finding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence about the accuracy of the ankle brachial index for the diagnosis of PAD in people with leg pain on exercise that is alleviated by rest is sparse. The single study included in our review provided only limb-level data from a few participants. Well-designed cross-sectional studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of ABI in patients presenting with early symptoms of peripheral arterial disease in all healthcare settings. Another systematic review of existing studies assessing the use of ABI in alternative patient groups, including asymptomatic, high-risk patients, is required.

D-dimer test for excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) can occur when a thrombus (blood clot) travels through the veins and lodges in the arteries of the lungs, producing an obstruction. People who are thought to be at risk include those with cancer, people who have had a recent surgical procedure or have experienced long periods of immobilisation and women who are pregnant. The clinical presentation can vary, but unexplained respiratory symptoms such as difficulty breathing, chest pain and an increased respiratory rate are common.D-dimers are fragments of protein released into the circulation when a blood clot breaks down as a result of normal body processes or with use of prescribed fibrinolytic medication. The D-dimer test is a laboratory assay currently used to rule out the presence of high D-dimer plasma levels and, by association, venous thromboembolism (VTE). D-dimer tests are rapid, simple and inexpensive and can prevent the high costs associated with expensive diagnostic tests. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of the D-dimer test to rule out a diagnosis of acute PE in patients treated in hospital outpatient and accident and emergency (A&E) settings who have had a pre-test probability (PTP) of PE determined according to a clinical prediction rule (CPR), by estimating the accuracy of the test according to estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review focuses on those patients who are not already established on anticoagulation at the time of study recruitment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 13 databases from conception until December 2013. We cross-checked the reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently applied exclusion criteria to full papers and resolved disagreements by discussion.We included cross-sectional studies of D-dimer in which ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, computerised tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), selective pulmonary angiography and magnetic resonance pulmonary angiography (MRPA) were used as the reference standard.• PARTICIPANTS: Adults who were managed in hospital outpatient and A&E settings and were suspected of acute PE were eligible for inclusion in the review if they had received a pre-test probability score based on a CPR.• INDEX TESTS: quantitative, semi quantitative and qualitative D-dimer tests.• Target condition: acute symptomatic PE.• Reference standards: We included studies that used pulmonary angiography, V/Q scintigraphy, CTPA and MRPA as reference standard tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). We resolved disagreements by discussion. Review authors extracted patient-level data when available to populate 2 × 2 contingency tables (true-positives (TPs), true-negatives (TNs), false-positives (FPs) and false-negatives (FNs)). MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies in the review (n = 1585 patients). None of the studies were at high risk of bias in any of the QUADAS-2 domains, but some uncertainty surrounded the validity of studies in some domains for which the risk of bias was uncertain. D-dimer assays demonstrated high sensitivity in all four studies, but with high levels of false-positive results, especially among those over the age of 65 years. Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 80% to 100%, and estimates of specificity from 23% to 63%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A negative D-dimer test is valuable in ruling out PE in patients who present to the A&E setting with a low PTP. Evidence from one study suggests that this test may have less utility in older populations, but no empirical evidence was available to support an increase in the diagnostic threshold of interpretation of D-dimer results for those over the age of 65 years.

The use of fibrin sealant during non-emergency surgery: a systematic review of evidence of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Fibrin sealants are used in different types of surgery to prevent the accumulation of post-operative fluid (seroma) or blood (haematoma) or to arrest haemorrhage (bleeding). However, there is uncertainty around the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the benefits and harms of fibrin sealants in non-emergency surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)] were searched from inception to May 2015. The websites of regulatory bodies (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration) were also searched to identify evidence of harms. REVIEW METHODS: This review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using any type of fibrin sealant compared with standard care in non-emergency surgery in adults. The primary outcome was risk of developing seroma and haematoma. Only RCTs were used to inform clinical effectiveness and both RCTs and observational studies were used for the assessment of harms related to the use of fibrin sealant. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and validated by a second. The quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for adverse events for observational studies. A fixed-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 186 RCTs and eight observational studies across 14 surgical specialties and five reports from the regulatory bodies. Most RCTs were judged to be at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were inappropriately reported in observational studies. Meta-analysis across non-emergency surgical specialties did not show a statistically significant difference in the risk of seroma for fibrin sealants versus standard care in 32 RCTs analysed [n = 3472, odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.04; p = 0.13; I2 = 12.7%], but a statistically significant benefit was found on haematoma development in 24 RCTs (n = 2403, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Adverse events related to fibrin sealant use were reported in 10 RCTs and eight observational studies across surgical specialties, and 22 RCTs explicitly stated that there were no adverse events. One RCT reported a single death but no other study reported mortality or any serious adverse events. Five regulatory body reports noted death from air emboli associated with fibrin sprays. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to provide a detailed evaluation of individual RCTs in their specific contexts because of the limited resources that were available for this research. In addition, the number of RCTs that were identified made it impractical to conduct independent data extraction by two reviewers in the time available. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of fibrin sealants does not appear to vary according to surgical procedures with regard to reducing the risk of seroma or haematoma. Surgeons should note the potential risk of gas embolism if spray application of fibrin sealants is used and not to exceed the recommended pressure and spraying distance. Future research should be carried out in surgery specialties for which only limited data were found, including neurological, gynaecological, oral and maxillofacial, urology, colorectal and orthopaedics surgery (for any outcome); breast surgery and upper gastrointestinal (development of haematoma); and cardiothoracic heart or lung surgery (reoperation rates). In addition, studies need to use adequate sample sizes, to blind participants and outcome assessors, and to follow reporting guidelines. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020710. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors for foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS).

BACKGROUND: Annual foot risk assessment of people with diabetes is recommended in national and international clinical guidelines. At present, these are consensus based and use only a proportion of the available evidence. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a systematic review of individual patient data (IPD) to identify the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified from searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE. REVIEW METHODS: The electronic search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases created during an aggregate systematic review of predictive factors for foot ulceration in diabetes were updated and rerun to January 2013. One reviewer applied the IPD review eligibility criteria to the full-text articles of the studies identified in our literature search and also to all studies excluded from our aggregate systematic review to ensure that we did not miss eligible IPD. A second reviewer applied the eligibility criteria to a 10% random sample of the abstract search yield to check that no relevant material was missed. This review includes exposure variables (risk factors) only from individuals who were free of foot ulceration at the time of study entry and who had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (either type 1 or type 2). The outcome variable was incident ulceration. RESULTS: Our search identified 16 cohort studies and we obtained anonymised IPD for 10. These data were collected from more than 16,000 people with diabetes worldwide and reanalysed by us. One data set was kept for independent validation. The data sets contributing IPD covered a range of temporal, geographical and clinical settings. We therefore selected random-effects meta-analysis, which assumes not that all the estimates from each study are estimates of the same underlying true value, but rather that the estimates belong to the same distribution. We selected candidate variables for meta-analysis using specific criteria. After univariate meta-analyses, the most clinically important predictors were identified by an international steering committee for inclusion in the primary, multivariable meta-analysis. Age, sex, duration of diabetes, monofilaments and pulses were considered most prognostically important. Meta-analyses based on data from the entire IPD population found that an inability to feel a 10-g monofilament [odds ratio (OR) 3.184, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.654 to 3.82], at least one absent pedal pulse (OR 1.968, 95% CI 1.624 to 2.386), a longer duration of a diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.024, 95% CI 1.011 to 1.036) and a previous history of ulceration (OR 6.589, 95% CI 2.488 to 17.45) were all predictive of risk. Female sex was protective (OR 0.743, 95% CI 0.598 to 0.922). LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis using a one-step approach because we were unable to procure copies of one of the data sets and instead accessed data via Safe Haven. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review identify risk assessment procedures that can reliably inform national and international diabetes clinical guideline foot risk assessment procedures. The evidence from a large sample of patients in worldwide settings show that the use of a 10-g monofilament or one absent pedal pulse will identify those at moderate or intermediate risk of foot ulceration, and a history of foot ulcers or lower-extremity amputation is sufficient to identify those at high risk. We propose the development of a clinical prediction rule (CPR) from our existing model using the following predictor variables: insensitivity to a 10-g monofilament, absent pedal pulses and a history of ulceration or lower-extremities amputations. This CPR could replace the many tests, signs and symptoms that patients currently have measured using equipment that is either costly or difficult to use. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001841. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The impact of official development aid on maternal and reproductive health outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Progress toward meeting Millennium Development Goal 5, which aims to improve maternal and reproductive health outcomes, is behind schedule. This is despite ever increasing volumes of official development aid targeting the goal, calling into question the distribution and efficacy of aid. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness represented a global commitment to reform aid practices in order to improve development outcomes, encouraging a shift toward collaborative aid arrangements which support the national plans of aid recipient countries (and discouraging unaligned donor projects). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review to summarise the evidence of the impact on MDG 5 outcomes of official development aid delivered in line with Paris aid effectiveness principles and to compare this with the impact of aid in general on MDG 5 outcomes. Searches of electronic databases identified 30 studies reporting aid-funded interventions designed to improve maternal and reproductive health outcomes. Aid interventions appear to be associated with small improvements in the MDG indicators, although it is not clear whether changes are happening because of the manner in which aid is delivered. The data do not allow for a meaningful comparison between Paris style and general aid. The review identified discernible gaps in the evidence base on aid interventions targeting MDG 5, notably on indicators MDG 5.4 (adolescent birth rate) and 5.6 (unmet need for family planning). DISCUSSION: This review presents the first systematic review of the impact of official development aid delivered according to the Paris principles and aid delivered outside this framework on MDG 5 outcomes. Its findings point to major gaps in the evidence base and should be used to inform new approaches and methodologies aimed at measuring the impact of official development aid.

Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related lower limb amputations are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and are usually preceded by foot ulceration. The available systematic reviews of aggregate data are compromised because the primary studies report both adjusted and unadjusted estimates. As adjusted meta-analyses of aggregate data can be challenging, the best way to standardise the analytical approach is to conduct a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).There are however many challenges and fundamental methodological omissions are common; protocols are rare and the assessment of the risk of bias arising from the conduct of individual studies is frequently not performed, largely because of the absence of widely agreed criteria for assessing the risk of bias in this type of review. In this protocol we propose key methodological approaches to underpin our IPD systematic review of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in diabetes.Review questions;1. What are the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes?2. Can the data from each study be adjusted for a consistent set of adjustment factors?3. Does the model accuracy change when patient populations are stratified according to demographic and/or clinical characteristics? METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception until early 2012 were searched and the corresponding authors of all eligible primary studies invited to contribute their raw data. We developed relevant quality assurance items likely to identify occasions when study validity may have been compromised from several sources. A confidentiality agreement, arrangements for communication and reporting as well as ethical and governance considerations are explained.We have agreement from the corresponding authors of all studies which meet the eligibility criteria and they collectively possess data from more than 17000 patients. We propose, as a provisional analysis plan, to use a multi-level mixed model, using "study" as one of the levels. Such a model can also allow for the within-patient clustering that occurs if a patient contributes data from both feet, although to aid interpretation, we prefer to use patients rather than feet as the unit of analysis. We intend to only attempt this analysis if the results of the investigation of heterogeneity do not rule it out and the model diagnostics are acceptable. DISCUSSION: This review is central to the development of a global evidence-based strategy for the risk assessment of the foot in patients with diabetes, ensuring future recommendations are valid and can reliably inform international clinical guidelines.

Vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin for the long term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: People with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are generally treated for five days with intravenous unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by three months of vitamin K antagonist treatment. Treatment with vitamin K antagonists requires regular laboratory measurements and some patients have contraindications to treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2000 and updated in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of long term treatment of VTE with LMWH compared to vitamin K antagonists. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched February 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 1). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two authors evaluated trials independently for methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors extracted data independently. Primary analysis included all trial participants randomised to the allocated treatment groups. Separate analyses were performed according to the quality of the trials and for subgroups such as trials initially using similar treatments in both trial arms and those that did not, trials concerning deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and the different periods of follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: All 15 trials, with a combined total of 3197 patients, fulfilling our criteria were combined in a meta-analysis. We found a non-statistically significant reduction in the risk of recurrent VTE between the two treatments (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). Analysis of pooled data for category I trials (those with a high methodological quality) showed a non-significant reduction in the odds of recurrent VTE favouring LMWH treatment (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18).For all trials combined, the difference in bleeding significantly favoured treatment with LMWH (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79). Considering only category I trials, a non-significant trend favouring LMWH remained (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07). No difference was observed in mortality (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LMWHs are possibly as effective as vitamin K antagonists in preventing symptomatic VTE after an episode of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, but are much more expensive. Treatment with LMWH is significantly safer than treatment with vitamin K antagonists. LMWH may result in fewer episodes of bleeding and is possibly a safe alternative in some patients, especially those in geographically inaccessible areas, are reluctant to visit the thrombosis service regularly, or with contraindications to vitamin K antagonists. However, treatment with vitamin K antagonists remains the treatment of choice for the majority of patients.

Handsearching did not yield additional unique FDG-PET diagnostic test accuracy studies compared with electronic searches: a preliminary investigation.

We explored the value of handsearching to identify diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies to inform systematic reviews of DTA. Handsearching was conducted alongside a systematic review of the DTA of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG PET-CT) for colorectal cancer. Ten journals, identified by frequency analysis of studies from six imaging reviews, were handsearched for reports of DTA studies. The numbers of studies identified by handsearching and by database searching were compared. A total of 573 journal issues from ten journals were handsearched in 185 h. A total of 936 potential reports of DTA studies were identified: 25 were relevant to the FDG PET-CT review. 7/25 FDG PET-CT papers had not been identified by database searches. No papers met the systematic review inclusion criteria. The FDG-PET systematic review included 30 papers, from 24 different journals. Handsearching two of those journals identified 211 potential reports of DTA studies for all topics and 18 for FDG PET-CT. Handsearching identified previously unseen papers but did not yield unique relevant DTA studies for the specific review. DTA imaging studies are widely distributed, and it may be more efficient to choose journals to handsearch after the identification of some relevant studies. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

WITHDRAWN. Interventions for treating plantar heel pain.

BACKGROUND: Ten percent of people may experience pain under the heel (plantar heel pain) at some time. Injections, insoles, heel pads, strapping and surgery have been common forms of treatment offered. The absolute and relative effectiveness of these interventions are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to identify and evaluate the evidence for effectiveness of treatments for plantar heel pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialised register (September 2002), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2002), EMBASE (1988 to September 2002) and reference lists of articles and dissertations. Four podiatry journals were handsearched to 1998. We contacted all UK schools of podiatry to identify dissertations on the management of heel pain, and investigators in the field to identify unpublished data or research in progress. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of interventions for plantar heel pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently evaluated randomised controlled trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Additional information was obtained by direct contact with investigators. No poolable data were identified. Where measures of variance were available we have calculated the weighted mean differences based on visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen randomised trials involving 1626 participants were included. Trial quality was generally poor, and pooling of data was not conducted. All trials measured heel pain as the primary outcome. Seven trials evaluated interventions against placebo/dummy or no treatment. There was limited evidence for the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid administered by iontophoresis, i.e. using an electric current, in reducing pain. There was some evidence for the effectiveness of injected corticosteroid providing temporary relief of pain. There was conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of low energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy in reducing night pain, resting pain and pressure pain in the short term (6 and 12 weeks) and therefore its effectiveness remains equivocal. In individuals with chronic pain (longer than six months), there was limited evidence for the effectiveness of dorsiflexion night splints in reducing pain. There was no evidence to support the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound, low-intensity laser therapy, exposure to an electron generating device or insoles with magnetic foil. No randomised trials evaluating surgery, or radiotherapy against a randomly allocated control population were identified. There was limited evidence for the superiority of corticosteroid injections over orthotic devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of local corticosteroid therapy, the effectiveness of other frequently employed treatments in altering the clinical course of plantar heel pain has not been established in randomised controlled trials.At the moment there is limited evidence upon which to base clinical practice. Treatments that are used to reduce heel pain seem to bring only marginal gains over no treatment and control therapies such as stretching exercises. Steroid injections are a popular method of treating the condition but only seem to be useful in the short term and only to a small degree. Orthoses should be cautiously prescribed for those patients who stand for long periods; there is limited evidence that stretching exercises and heel pads are associated with better outcomes than custom made orthoses in people who stand for more than eight hours per day.Well designed and conducted randomised trials are required.

General practitioners' and nurses' experiences of using computerised decision support in screening for diabetic foot disease: implementing Scottish Clinical Information - Diabetes Care in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The Scottish Care Information - Diabetes Collaboration (SCI-DC) developed a computer-based information system to create a shared electronic record for use by all involved in the care of patients with diabetes mellitus. The objectives of this study were to understand primary care practitioners' views towards screening for diabetic foot disease and their experience of the SCI-DC system. METHOD: We conducted an exploratory study using qualitative methods. Semi-structured interviews were audiotape-recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. Seven practice nurses and six general practitioners (GPs) with special responsibility for diabetes care in NHS Lothian participated. RESULTS: Primary care clinicians reported good systems in place to screen for diabetes-related complications and to refer their patients to specialist care. Foot ulceration was rarely observed; other diabetes related conditions were seen as a higher priority. Most had heard of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool, but its failure to integrate with other primary care information technology (IT) systems meant it was not used in these general practices. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool in primary care is not perceived as clinically necessary. Although information recorded by specialist services on SCI-DC is helpful, important structural barriers to its implementation mean the potential benefits associated with its use are unlikely to be realised; greater engagement with primary care priorities for diabetes management is needed to assist its successful implementation and adoption.

Athlete's foot.

INTRODUCTION: Around 15% to 25% of people are likely to have athlete's foot at any one time. The infection can spread to other parts of the body and to other people. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for athlete's foot? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 14 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: improved foot hygiene, including socks and hosiery; topical allylamines (naftifine and terbinafine); topical azoles (bifonazole, clotrimazole, econazole nitrate, miconazole nitrate, sulconazole nitrate, and tioconazole); and topical ciclopirox olamine.

Athlete's foot.

INTRODUCTION: Around 15-25% of people are likely to have athlete's foot at any one time. The infection can spread to other parts of the body and to other people. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for athlete's foot? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 11 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: improved foot hygiene, including socks, and hosiery; topical allylamines (naftifine, terbinafine); topical azoles; and topical ciclopirox olamine.