Abstract:
Management of foot ulcer in individuals with diabetes remains a major therapeutic challenge throughout the world. We performed a critical review of evidence of present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. The golden standard for optimal evidence in the Cochrane system is level I – randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses of several randomized controlled trials. Available evidence on different types of wound debridement; use of antimicrobials; use of dressings in wounds; topical negative pressure, hyperbaric oxygen treatment; electrical, electromagnetic, laser, shockwave, and ultrasound therapies; growth and cell biology factors; cell products and tissue engineering; bioengineered skin and skin grafts; and adjuvant therapies were evaluated. The results of this review show that there is limited evidence on the highest level to justify a change in routine clinical practice. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence, because the studies are often based on inadequate sample size, short follow-up, nonrandom allocation to treatment arms, nonblinded assessment of outcomes, poor description of control, and concurrent intervention. The heterogeneity of the population (of both people and ulcers), with multiple factors contributing to both ulcer onset and failure to heal, makes the trial design difficult in this field. Another fundamental reason for the lack of evidence is the general use of the outcome measure ‘complete healing’. In conclusion, when the results of this updated review are taken together with those of the earlier reports, they provide limited evidence to justify a change in routine clinical practice. For this reason, there is an urgent need to increase the quality of clinical studies. A re-evaluation of which type of research is acceptable for producing evidence in the wound area may be important in the future.
Gottrup, Apelqvist, , , , , , , (2012). Present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of DFU: a critical review of evidence. Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2012 Feb;28 Suppl 1():64-71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22271726