Dataset Information

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/hypothesis

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of alternative dressings in a field where there are several different dressing options. We aimed to determine the relative effects of alternative wound dressings on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.

Methods

This study was a systematic review involving Bayesian mixed treatment comparison. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects on diabetic foot ulcer healing of one or more wound dressings. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status.

Results

Fifteen eligible studies, evaluating nine dressing types, were included. Ten direct treatment comparisons were made. Whilst there was increased healing associated with hydrogel and foam dressings compared with basic wound contact materials, these findings were based on data from small studies at unclear or high risk of bias. The mixed treatment comparison suggested that hydrocolloid-matrix dressings were associated with higher odds of ulcer healing than all other dressing types; there was a high degree of uncertainty around these estimates, which were deemed to be of very low quality.

Conclusions/interpretation

These findings summarise all available trial evidence regarding the use of dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers. More expensive dressings may offer no advantages in terms of healing than cheaper basic dressings. In addition, evidence pointing to a difference in favour of 'advanced' dressing types over basic wound contact materials is of low or very low quality.

SUBMITTER: Dumville JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3369130 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers.

Dumville J C JC Soares M O MO O'Meara S S Cullum N N

Diabetologia 20120429 7

<h4>Aims/hypothesis</h4>Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of alternative dressings in a field where there are several different dressing options. We aimed to determine the relative effects of alternative wound dressings on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was a systematic review involving Bayesi ...[more]

PMID: 22544222

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Technology Lipido-Colloid with Nano Oligo Saccharide Factor (TLC-NOSF) wound dressings versus neutral dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) from a French collective perspective. We used a Markov microsimulation cohort model to simulate the DFU monthly progression over the lifetime horizon. Our study employed a mixed method design with model inputs including data from interventional and observational studies, French databases and expert opinion. The demographic characteristics of the simulated population and clinical efficacy were based on the EXPLORER double-blind randomized controlled trial. Health-related quality of life, costs, and resource use inputs were taken from the literature relevant to the French context. The main outcomes included life-years without DFU (LYsw/DFU), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), amputations, and lifetime costs. To assess the robustness of the results, sensitivity and subgroup analyses based on the wound duration at treatment initiation were performed. Treatment with the TLC-NOSF dressing led to total cost savings per patient of EUR 35,489, associated with gains of 0.50 LYw/DFU and 0.16 QALY. TLC-NOSF dressings were established as the dominant strategy in the base case and all sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the model revealed that, for every 100 patients treated with TLC-NOSF dressings, two amputations could be avoided. According to the subgroup analysis results, the sooner the TLC-NOSF treatment was initiated, the better were the outcomes, with the highest benefits for ulcers with a duration of two months or less (+0.65 LYw/DFU, +0.23 QALY, and cost savings of EUR 55,710). The results from the French perspective are consistent with the ones from the German and British perspectives. TLC-NOSF dressings are cost-saving compared to neutral dressings, leading to an increase in patients' health benefits and a decrease in the associated treatment costs. These results can thus be used to guide healthcare decisionmakers. The potential savings could represent EUR 3,345 per treated patient per year and even reach EUR 4,771 when TLC-NOSF dressings are used as first line treatment. The EXPLORER trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717183.

Project description:BackgroundOffloading interventions are commonly used in clinical practice to heal foot ulcers. The aim of this updated systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of offloading interventions to heal diabetic foot ulcers.MethodsWe updated our previous systematic review search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to also include original studies published between July 29, 2014 and August 13, 2018 relating to four offloading intervention categories in populations with diabetic foot ulcers: (a) offloading devices, (b) footwear, (c) other offloading techniques, and (d) surgical offloading techniques. Outcomes included ulcer healing, plantar pressure, ambulatory activity, adherence, adverse events, patient-reported measures, and cost-effectiveness. Included controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality and had key data extracted into evidence and risk of bias tables. Included non-controlled studies were summarised on a narrative basis.ResultsWe identified 41 studies from our updated search for a total of 165 included studies. Six included studies were meta-analyses, 26 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 13 other controlled studies, and 120 non-controlled studies. Five meta-analyses and 12 RCTs provided high-quality evidence for non-removable knee-high offloading devices being more effective than removable offloading devices and therapeutic footwear for healing plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Total contact casts (TCCs) and non-removable knee-high walkers were shown to be equally effective. Moderate-quality evidence exists for removable knee-high and ankle-high offloading devices being equally effective in healing, but knee-high devices have a larger effect on reducing plantar pressure and ambulatory activity. Low-quality evidence exists for the use of felted foam and surgical offloading to promote healing of plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Very limited evidence exists for the efficacy of any offloading intervention for healing plantar heel ulcers, non-plantar ulcers, and neuropathic ulcers with infection or ischemia.ConclusionStrong evidence supports the use of non-removable knee-high offloading devices (either TCC or non-removable walker) as the first-choice offloading intervention for healing plantar neuropathic forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Removable offloading devices, either knee-high or ankle-high, are preferred as second choice over other offloading interventions. The evidence bases to support any other offloading intervention is still weak and more high-quality controlled studies are needed in these areas.

Project description:AimThe aim of this study was to investigate safety of treating diabetic foot ulcers with a topically administered mesenchymal stem cell product.MethodIndividuals with diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, toe blood pressure > 39 mmHg and non-infected foot ulcers with duration of four to fifty-two weeks were screened. Participants were treated with a one-time application of a topically applied allogeneic cellular product containing CD362 enriched mesenchymal stem cells suspended in a collagen solution. Participants were subsequently followed for seven months to gather information on adverse event and serious adverse events.Results/discussionA total of sixteen individuals were screened, of whom two were included. The included participants incurred a total of seven adverse events and one serious adverse event. Increased exudation from the treated diabetic foot ulcer was observed for both participants and a connection to investigational medicinal product was suspected. The increased exudation was resolved within one week after application of investigational medicinal product, without any further complications. The serious adverse event consisted of a hospital admission due to neurological symptoms, which were assumed to be caused by hypoglycemia, with no suspected correlation to the investigational medicinal product. None of the other observed adverse events were suspected to be associated with the investigational medicinal product.ConclusionThis study presents data from two individuals with a diabetic foot ulcer treated with a novel topical mesenchymal stem cell product. An adverse event observed for both participants was suspected to be associated to the investigational medicinal product, i.e., increased exudation, which was resolved within one week, did not lead to further complications and can easily be remedied by choosing bandages with higher absorption capacity or increasing frequency of bandage changes. This study lays the groundwork for further large scale randomized clinical studies.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2015-005580-16. Registered 12/06-2018.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the evidence of effectiveness of dressings applied to venous leg ulcers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesHand searches of journals and searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies up to April 2006; contacts with dressing manufacturers for unpublished studies.Studies reviewedAll randomised controlled trials that evaluated dressings applied to venous leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy identified 254 studies; 42 of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloids were no more effective than simple low adherent dressings used beneath compression (eight trials; relative risk for healing with hydrocolloid 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). For other comparisons, insufficient evidence was available to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. None of the dressing comparisons showed evidence that a particular class of dressing healed more ulcers. Some differences existed between dressings in terms of subjective outcome measures and ulcer healing rates. The results were not affected by the size or quality of trials or the unit of randomisation. Insufficient data were available to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative cost effectiveness of different dressings.ConclusionsThe type of dressing applied beneath compression was not shown to affect ulcer healing. The results of the meta-analysis showed that applying hydrocolloid dressings beneath compression produced no benefit in terms of ulcer healing compared with applying simple low adherent dressings. No conclusive recommendations can be made as to which type of dressing is most cost effective. Decisions on which dressing to apply should be based on the local costs of dressings and the preferences of the practitioner or patient.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic foot ulcers are a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM), when heparin and heparin related substances may be potentially used as an adjuvant treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin and heparin related substances for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.MethodsWe searched up to March 2021 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL; VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database and Wan Fang Database investigating heparin or heparin-related substances in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The primary outcomes included proportion of ulcers completely healed and time to complete ulcer healing. We assessed each included study with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.ResultsWe included nine randomized studies involving 620 participants in the meta-analysis, involving two different heparin and heparin-related substances, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and hyaluronic acid. Our study did not show the benefits from LMWH on increasing chance of the ulcer healing (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.04; P=0.35; very low) or shortening the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD: 0.13 d; 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.56; P=0.54; very low). Hyaluronic acid may improve the complete ulcer healing (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.91; P˂0.00001; very low) and shorten the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.53; P<0.00001; low). Hyaluronic acid and LMWH were generally well tolerated for treating diabetic foot ulcers in this review.ConclusionHyaluronic acid may improve diabetic foot ulcer with very low quality evidence but not LMWH. However, the benefits and harms need further validation in larger trials with different population.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [PROSPERO, CRD42021269212].

Project description:IntroductionDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are complex chronic wounds which have a major long-term impact on the morbidity, mortality and quality of patients. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and time sensitivity of human amnion/chorion membrane treatment in patients with chronic DFUs.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to identify relevant articles up to 10 April 2017. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing human amnion/chorion membrane + standard therapy and standard therapy alone in patients with DFUs were included in the analysis. Eligible studies were reviewed and data extracted into standard form. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used. Review manager version 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Data were analyzed using a random effect model.ResultsOverall, the initial search of the four databases identified 352 published studies; of these, seven RCTS were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. The overall test effect in the group assessed at 4 weeks was Z = 4.14 [P < 0.0001; odds ratio (OR) 0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.21]. The overall test effect in the group assessed at 6 weeks was Z = 4.28 (P < 0.0001; OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23). The overall effect in the group assessed at 12 weeks was Z = 4.96 (P < 0.00001; OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.04-0.24. The results showed that patients receiving amniotic membrane + standard therapy had far fewer incomplete healing wounds than those receiving standard of care alone. Assessment of the wound healing state at 4 and 6 weeks revealed that the wound healing state was almost the same, but there was a net difference of wound healing state at 12 weeks.ConclusionHuman amnion/chorion membrane + standard of care treatment heals DFUs significantly faster than standard of care alone. When using the amnion in patients with DFUs, the optimal times to assess progress in wound healing should be 4 and 12 weeks.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers.

Aims/hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions/interpretation

Publications

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets