Department of Dermatology, D42, Copenhagen Wound Healing Center, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012 Feb;28 Suppl 1:64-71. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2242.
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.
在全球范围内,管理糖尿病患者的足部溃疡仍然是一个主要的治疗挑战。我们对治疗糖尿病足溃疡的现有技术和设备进行了证据的批判性评估。Cochrane 系统中最佳证据的黄金标准是一级——随机对照试验,以及几项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。现有的不同类型的伤口清创术、使用抗生素、伤口敷料、局部负压、高压氧治疗、电、电磁、激光、冲击波和超声波治疗、生长和细胞生物学因子、细胞产品和组织工程、生物工程皮肤和皮肤移植、辅助治疗的证据进行了评估。该综述的结果表明,对于改变常规临床实践,仅有有限的最高级别证据支持。由于研究通常基于样本量不足、随访时间短、治疗组非随机分配、结果评估不盲、对照描述不佳以及同时进行干预,因此缺乏高质量的证据。人群(患者和溃疡)的异质性,多种因素导致溃疡的发生和愈合失败,使得该领域的试验设计变得困难。缺乏证据的另一个根本原因是普遍使用“完全愈合”作为结局测量指标。总之,当将本次更新综述的结果与早期报告的结果结合起来时,它们提供的证据有限,不足以支持改变常规临床实践。因此,迫切需要提高临床研究的质量。未来可能需要重新评估哪种类型的研究可以为伤口领域提供证据。