{"title":"对现有糖尿病足筛查指南的关键评价。","authors":"C. Formosa, A. Gatt, N. Chockalingam","doi":"10.1900/RDS.2016.13.158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIM To evaluate critically the current guidelines for foot screening in patients with diabetes, and to examine their relevance in terms of advancement in clinical practice, improvement in technology, and change in socio-cultural structure. METHODS A structured literature search was conducted in Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google between January 2011 and January 2015 using the keywords '(Diabetes) AND (Foot Screening) AND (Guidelines)'. RESULTS Ten complete diabetes foot screening guidelines were identified and selected for analysis. Six of them included the full-process guidelines recommended by the International Diabetes Federation. Evaluation of the existing diabetes foot screening guidelines showed substantial variability in terms of different evidence-based methods and grading systems to achieve targets, making it difficult to compare the guidelines. In some of the guidelines, it is unclear how the authors have derived the recommendations, i.e. on which study results they are based, making it difficult for the users to understand them. CONCLUSIONS Limitations of currently available guidelines and lack of evidence on which the guidelines are based are responsible for the current gaps between guidelines, standard clinical practice, and development of complications. For the development of standard recommendations and everyday clinical practice, it will be necessary to pay more attention to both the limitations of guidelines and the underlying evidence.","PeriodicalId":34965,"journal":{"name":"Review of Diabetic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Evaluation of Existing Diabetic Foot Screening Guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"C. Formosa, A. Gatt, N. Chockalingam\",\"doi\":\"10.1900/RDS.2016.13.158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AIM To evaluate critically the current guidelines for foot screening in patients with diabetes, and to examine their relevance in terms of advancement in clinical practice, improvement in technology, and change in socio-cultural structure. METHODS A structured literature search was conducted in Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google between January 2011 and January 2015 using the keywords '(Diabetes) AND (Foot Screening) AND (Guidelines)'. RESULTS Ten complete diabetes foot screening guidelines were identified and selected for analysis. Six of them included the full-process guidelines recommended by the International Diabetes Federation. Evaluation of the existing diabetes foot screening guidelines showed substantial variability in terms of different evidence-based methods and grading systems to achieve targets, making it difficult to compare the guidelines. In some of the guidelines, it is unclear how the authors have derived the recommendations, i.e. on which study results they are based, making it difficult for the users to understand them. CONCLUSIONS Limitations of currently available guidelines and lack of evidence on which the guidelines are based are responsible for the current gaps between guidelines, standard clinical practice, and development of complications. For the development of standard recommendations and everyday clinical practice, it will be necessary to pay more attention to both the limitations of guidelines and the underlying evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Diabetic Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Diabetic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1900/RDS.2016.13.158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Diabetic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1900/RDS.2016.13.158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39
摘要
目的:批判性地评估糖尿病患者足部筛查的现行指南,并从临床实践的进步、技术的改进和社会文化结构的变化等方面考察其相关性。方法在2011年1月至2015年1月期间,以“(糖尿病)、(足部筛查)和(指南)”为关键词,在Pubmed/Medline、CINAHL、Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials和Google中进行结构化文献检索。结果确定并选择完整的糖尿病足筛查指南进行分析。其中六项包括国际糖尿病联合会推荐的全流程指南。对现有糖尿病足筛查指南的评估显示,在不同的循证方法和实现目标的分级系统方面存在很大差异,因此难以对指南进行比较。在一些指南中,不清楚作者是如何得出这些建议的,也就是说,他们基于哪些研究结果,这使得用户很难理解它们。结论:现有指南的局限性和缺乏指南所依据的证据是目前指南、标准临床实践和并发症发展之间存在差距的原因。对于标准建议和日常临床实践的发展,有必要更多地关注指南的局限性和潜在的证据。
A Critical Evaluation of Existing Diabetic Foot Screening Guidelines.
AIM To evaluate critically the current guidelines for foot screening in patients with diabetes, and to examine their relevance in terms of advancement in clinical practice, improvement in technology, and change in socio-cultural structure. METHODS A structured literature search was conducted in Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google between January 2011 and January 2015 using the keywords '(Diabetes) AND (Foot Screening) AND (Guidelines)'. RESULTS Ten complete diabetes foot screening guidelines were identified and selected for analysis. Six of them included the full-process guidelines recommended by the International Diabetes Federation. Evaluation of the existing diabetes foot screening guidelines showed substantial variability in terms of different evidence-based methods and grading systems to achieve targets, making it difficult to compare the guidelines. In some of the guidelines, it is unclear how the authors have derived the recommendations, i.e. on which study results they are based, making it difficult for the users to understand them. CONCLUSIONS Limitations of currently available guidelines and lack of evidence on which the guidelines are based are responsible for the current gaps between guidelines, standard clinical practice, and development of complications. For the development of standard recommendations and everyday clinical practice, it will be necessary to pay more attention to both the limitations of guidelines and the underlying evidence.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Diabetic Studies (RDS) is the society"s peer-reviewed journal published quarterly. The purpose of The RDS is to support and encourage research in biomedical diabetes-related science including areas such as endocrinology, immunology, epidemiology, genetics, cell-based research, developmental research, bioengineering and disease management.