Diabetic foot self-care and concordance of 3 diabetic foot risk stratification systems in a basic health area of Gran Canaria

Torre, Héctor González de la; Quintana-Lorenzo, M. Luana; Lorenzo-Navarro, Almudena; Suárez-Sánchez, Juan; Berenguer‐Pérez, Miriam; Verdú-Soriano, José

doi:10.1016/j.enfcle.2019.07.012

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most frequent population scenario was inpatient with 23 studies [ 19 – 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 44 – 51 , 53 ]. Regarding the type of DM, 23 studies [ 13 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 – 40 , 43 – 46 , 48 – 50 , 53 ] didn’t specify the type of DM. Only three studies included population with CKD [ 44 , 45 , 53 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of diabetic foot at risk of ulcer development and its components stratification according to the international working group on the diabetic foot (IWGDF): A systematic review with metanalysis

Maldonado-Valer,

Pareja-Mujica,

Corcuera-Ciudad

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To determine the overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk according to the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot stratification. Materials and methods We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. We included cross-sectional studies or cohorts from 1999 to March 2022. We performed a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity through subgroup analysis by continent and other characteristics. Results We included 36 studies with a total population of 11,850 people from 23 countries. The estimated overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk was 53.2% (95% CI: 45.1–61.3), I2 = 98.7%, p < 0.001. In the analysis by subgroups, South and Central America had the highest prevalence and Africa the lowest. The factors explaining the heterogeneity were the presence of chronic kidney disease, diagnostic method for peripheral arterial disease, and quality. The estimates presented very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions The overall prevalence of diabetic foot at risk is high. The high heterogeneity between continents can be explained by methodological aspects and the type of population. However, using the same classification is necessary for standardization of the way of measuring the components, as well as better designed general population-based studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, stage 3 in in 3A (former ulcer history) and 3B (former amputation history) [ 54 ]. In our study, five reports [ 28 , 41 , 43 , 50 , 51 ] used this last stratification. But this modification didn’t change the percentage of patients at risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of diabetic foot at risk of ulcer development and its components stratification according to the international working group on the diabetic foot (IWGDF): A systematic review with metanalysis

Maldonado-Valer,

Pareja-Mujica,

Corcuera-Ciudad

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table S2: Methodological quality of included studies ( n = 53) using MMAT tool. Table S3: Detailed analysis of psychometric evidence of six instruments measuring foot self-care, analysed against the criteria proposed by Zwakhalen and colleagues [ 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Measure Foot Self-Care? A Methodological Review of Instruments

Sipilä

Mäkelä

Hyytiä³

et al. 2023

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foot self-care is an important element of caring for and promoting foot health. However, little is known about the validity and reliability of existing foot self-care instruments. The purpose of this review is to describe and analyze the focus, content, and psychometric evidence of existing instruments for measuring foot self-care. A methodological review of three international scientific databases—Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Embase—was conducted in May 2022. The search produced 3520 hits, of which 53 studies were included in the final analysis based on a two-phase selection process. A total of 31 instruments were identified, of which six were observed to have been used more than once. Subsequently, the methodological quality of these six instruments was evaluated. It is noted that although a considerable variety of instruments are used in measuring foot self-care, only a small proportion are used consistently. In general, the psychometric testing instruments seem to primarily focus on analyzing content validity and homogeneity. In the future, comprehensive testing of instrument psychometrics could enhance the cumulative evidence of the methodological quality of these instruments. Furthermore, researchers and clinicians can use the information in this review to make informed choices when selecting an instrument for their purposes.

show abstract

Diabetic foot self-care and concordance of 3 diabetic foot risk stratification systems in a basic health area of Gran Canaria

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Prevalence of diabetic foot at risk of ulcer development and its components stratification according to the international working group on the diabetic foot (IWGDF): A systematic review with metanalysis

Prevalence of diabetic foot at risk of ulcer development and its components stratification according to the international working group on the diabetic foot (IWGDF): A systematic review with metanalysis

How to Measure Foot Self-Care? A Methodological Review of Instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About