PloS one · 2023
Prevalence of diabetic foot at risk of ulcer development and its components stratification according to the international working group on the diabetic foot (IWGDF): A systematic review with metanalysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Maldonado-Valer Tania, Pareja-Mujica Luis F, Corcuera-Ciudad Rodrigo, Terry-Escalante Fernando Andres, Chevarría-Arriaga Mylenka Jennifer, Vasquez-Hassinger Tery, Yovera-Aldana Marlon
Аннотация
AIMS: To determine the overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk according to the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot stratification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. We included cross-sectional studies or cohorts from 1999 to March 2022. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity through subgroup analysis by continent and other characteristics.
RESULTS: We included 36 studies with a total population of 11,850 people from 23 countries. The estimated overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk was 53.2% (95% CI: 45.1-61.3), I2 = 98.7%, p < 0.001. In the analysis by subgroups, South and Central America had the highest prevalence and Africa the lowest. The factors explaining the heterogeneity were the presence of chronic kidney disease, diagnostic method for peripheral arterial disease, and quality. The estimates presented very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk is high. The high heterogeneity between continents can be explained by methodological aspects and the type of population. However, using the same classification is necessary for standardization of the way of measuring the components, as well as better designed general population-based studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. We included cross-sectional studies or cohorts from 1999 to March 2022. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity through subgroup analysis by continent and other characteristics.
RESULTS: We included 36 studies with a total population of 11,850 people from 23 countries. The estimated overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk was 53.2% (95% CI: 45.1-61.3), I2 = 98.7%, p < 0.001. In the analysis by subgroups, South and Central America had the highest prevalence and Africa the lowest. The factors explaining the heterogeneity were the presence of chronic kidney disease, diagnostic method for peripheral arterial disease, and quality. The estimates presented very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk is high. The high heterogeneity between continents can be explained by methodological aspects and the type of population. However, using the same classification is necessary for standardization of the way of measuring the components, as well as better designed general population-based studies.