Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorCrawford, Fay
dc.contributor.authorNicolson, Donald J
dc.contributor.authorAmanna, Aparna E
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Marie
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-20T16:30:01Z
dc.date.available2022-10-20T16:30:01Z
dc.date.issued2022-10-20
dc.identifier281791622
dc.identifiera3712f99-2fda-4a55-9348-08af238cd173
dc.identifier85140255012
dc.identifier000870728500001
dc.identifier.citationCrawford , F , Nicolson , D J , Amanna , A E & Smith , M 2022 , ' Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes : an overview of systematic reviews ' , BMC Medical Research Methodology , vol. 22 , 274 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01738-yen
dc.identifier.issn1471-2288
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/26224
dc.descriptionFunding: This overview was funded as part of a wider project by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (HTA project: 15/171/01). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or UK Department of Health and Social Care.en
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 of-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.
dc.format.extent21
dc.format.extent1588267
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Medical Research Methodologyen
dc.subjectOverviewen
dc.subjectSystemic reviewsen
dc.subjectEvidence-based health careen
dc.subjectRA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicineen
dc.subjectDASen
dc.subjectSDG 3 - Good Health and Well-beingen
dc.subjectMCCen
dc.subject.lccRA0421en
dc.titleReliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes : an overview of systematic reviewsen
dc.typeJournal itemen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Population and Behavioural Science Divisionen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Medicineen
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record