Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2016
Evidence based review of literature on detriments to healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Lefrancois Tina, Mehta Kinjal, Sullivan Victoria, Lin Sheldon, Glazebrook Mark
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus places a substantial burden on society worldwide. Diabetic foot ulcers are a challenging problem for clinicians. Seven generally accepted detriments to healing of diabetic foot ulcers were identified: infection, glycaemic control, vascular supply, smoking, nutrition, deformity and offloading. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive evidence based review of the literature available on detriments to healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
METHOD: A research question was generated for each of the detriments to healing and a comprehensive review of the literature was performed using the Pubmed database in July 2014. All articles were assessed for relevancy and a level of evidence was assigned. An analysis of the total body of literature was used to assign a grade of recommendation to each detriment.
RESULTS: Grade A recommendation was assigned to offloading as there was good evidence supporting this intervention. Grade B recommendation was assigned to deformity as there was fair evidence consistent with the hypothesis. Infection and vascular supply had poor quality evidence supporting the research question and grade C recommendation was assigned. Grade I recommendation was assigned to glycaemic control, smoking and nutrition as there was insufficient and conflicting evidence available.
CONCLUSION: Our literature review revealed good evidence for some factors and insufficient literature on others. Further studies are needed to provide quality evidence regarding detriments to healing of diabetic ulcers.
METHOD: A research question was generated for each of the detriments to healing and a comprehensive review of the literature was performed using the Pubmed database in July 2014. All articles were assessed for relevancy and a level of evidence was assigned. An analysis of the total body of literature was used to assign a grade of recommendation to each detriment.
RESULTS: Grade A recommendation was assigned to offloading as there was good evidence supporting this intervention. Grade B recommendation was assigned to deformity as there was fair evidence consistent with the hypothesis. Infection and vascular supply had poor quality evidence supporting the research question and grade C recommendation was assigned. Grade I recommendation was assigned to glycaemic control, smoking and nutrition as there was insufficient and conflicting evidence available.
CONCLUSION: Our literature review revealed good evidence for some factors and insufficient literature on others. Further studies are needed to provide quality evidence regarding detriments to healing of diabetic ulcers.