Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025
A Systematic Review Examining the Association of Falls With Diabetes-Related Foot Ulcers.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Mike, Sinha Mallika, Alahakoon Chanika, Barratt Kristen S, Thanigaimani Shivshankar, Golledge Jonathan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to systematically review the risk of falls in people with diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU).
METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL was undertaken to identify observational studies reporting falls and containing a group of people with a DFU and a control group with diabetes but no DFU. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 3643 participants with a DFU and 42,436 participants with diabetes but no DFU were included. A meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 95%) and an increased risk of falls in people with DFU (risk ratio 2.25 and 95% CI 1.05-4.84). One study had a low risk of bias and three studies had a high risk of bias. Leave-one-out analyses showed that exclusion of the study with the largest effect on heterogeneity resulted in a risk ratio of 1.80 (95% CI 1.33-2.43 and I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests people with a DFU have a higher risk of falls but most past studies have a high risk of bias. Further well-designed cohort studies are required.
METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL was undertaken to identify observational studies reporting falls and containing a group of people with a DFU and a control group with diabetes but no DFU. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 3643 participants with a DFU and 42,436 participants with diabetes but no DFU were included. A meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 95%) and an increased risk of falls in people with DFU (risk ratio 2.25 and 95% CI 1.05-4.84). One study had a low risk of bias and three studies had a high risk of bias. Leave-one-out analyses showed that exclusion of the study with the largest effect on heterogeneity resulted in a risk ratio of 1.80 (95% CI 1.33-2.43 and I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests people with a DFU have a higher risk of falls but most past studies have a high risk of bias. Further well-designed cohort studies are required.