Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of DFU: a critical review of evidence

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{069c8a8d8e3a43f79e4aa49c72f4ef95,
title = "Present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of DFU: a critical review of evidence",
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.",
keywords = "Anti-Infective Agents, Clinical Trials as Topic, Diabetic Foot, Humans, Hyperbaric Oxygenation, Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy, Skin Transplantation, Ultrasonic Therapy, Wound Healing",
author = "Finn Gottrup and Jan Apelqvist",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1002/dmrr.2242",
language = "English",
volume = "28 Suppl 1",
pages = "64--71",
journal = "Diabetes - Metabolism: Research and Reviews",
issn = "1520-7552",
publisher = "John/Wiley & Sons Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Present and new techniques and devices in the treatment of DFU

T2 - a critical review of evidence

AU - Gottrup, Finn

AU - Apelqvist, Jan

N1 - Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Anti-Infective Agents

KW - Clinical Trials as Topic

KW - Diabetic Foot

KW - Humans

KW - Hyperbaric Oxygenation

KW - Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy

KW - Skin Transplantation

KW - Ultrasonic Therapy

KW - Wound Healing

U2 - 10.1002/dmrr.2242

DO - 10.1002/dmrr.2242

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 22271726

VL - 28 Suppl 1

SP - 64

EP - 71

JO - Diabetes - Metabolism: Research and Reviews

JF - Diabetes - Metabolism: Research and Reviews

SN - 1520-7552

ER -

ID: 36872982