BACKGROUND: Multiple organizations have issued guidelines to address the prevention, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot ulcers. These guidelines are based on evidence review and expert opinion. <p>METHODS: Literature review was conducted and guidelines were reviewed to identify consensus (or lack thereof) on the nature of these recommendations, the strength of the recommendations and the level of evidence.</p> <p>RESULTS: Most guidelines were not based on highest level of evidence (randomized controlled trials). A listing of recommendations for prevention, diagnosis and management was created with evidence basis for all recommendations.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Areas for future research were identified among recommendations based on minimal evidence, areas of controversy, or in areas of clinical care without recommendations.</p>
Background: Multiple organizations have issued guidelines to address the prevention, diagnosis, and management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) based on evidence review and expert opinion. We reviewed these guidelines to identify consensus (or lack thereof) on the nature of these recommendations, the strength of the recommendations, and the level of evidence.
Methods: Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched in October 2018 using the MESH term diabetic foot, the key word diabetic foot, and the filters guideline or practice guideline. To minimize recommendations based on older literature, guidelines published before 2012 were excluded. Articles without recommendations characterized by strength of recommendation and level of evidence related specifically to DFU were also excluded. A manual search for societal recommendations yielded no further documents. Recommendations were ultimately extracted from 12 articles. Strength of evidence and strength of recommendation were noted for each guideline recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. To address disparate grading systems, we mapped the perceived level of evidence and strength of recommendations onto the American Heart Association guideline classification schema.
Results: Recommendations found in two or more guidelines were collected into a clinical checklist characterized by strength of evidence and strength of recommendation. Areas for future research were identified among recommendations based on minimal evidence, areas of controversy, or areas of clinical care without recommendations.
Conclusions: Through this work we developed a multidisciplinary set of DFU guidelines stratified by strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, created a clinical checklist for busy practitioners, and identified areas for future focused research. This work should be of value to clinicians, guideline-issuing bodies, and researchers. We also formulated a method for the review and integration of guidelines issued by multiple professional bodies.