Suppr超能文献

糖尿病足感染管理中的干预措施:系统评价。

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

机构信息

VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016 Jan;32 Suppl 1:145-53. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2706.

Abstract

The expert panel on diabetic foot infection (DFI) of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot conducted a systematic review seeking all published reports relating to any type of treatment for infection of the foot in persons with diabetes published as of 30 June 2014. This review, conducted with both PubMed and EMBASE, was used to update an earlier one undertaken on 30 June 2010 using the same search string. Eligible publications included those that had outcome measures reported for both a treated and a control population that were managed either at the same time, or as part of a before-and-after case design. We did not include studies that contained only information related to definition or diagnosis, but not treatment, of DFI. The current search identified just seven new articles meeting our criteria that were published since the 33 identified with the previous search, making a total of 40 articles from the world literature. The identified articles included 37 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies with concurrent controls, and included studies on the use of surgical procedures, topical antiseptics, negative pressure wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen. Among the studies were 15 RCTs that compared outcomes of treatment with new antibiotic preparations compared with a conventional therapy in the management of skin and soft tissue infection. In addition, 10 RCTs and 1 cohort study compared different treatments for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Results of comparisons of different antibiotic regimens generally demonstrated that newly introduced antibiotic regimens appeared to be as effective as conventional therapy (and also more cost-effective in one study), but one study failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of a new antibiotic compared with that of a standard agent. Overall, the available literature was both limited in both the number of studies and the quality of their design. Thus, our systematic review revealed little evidence upon which to make recommendations for treatment of DFIs. There is a great need for further well-designed trials that will provide robust data upon which to make decisions about the most appropriate treatment of both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis in diabetic patients.

摘要

糖尿病足感染(DFI)专家小组对国际糖尿病足工作组进行了系统评价,旨在寻找截至 2014 年 6 月 30 日发表的所有与糖尿病患者足部感染的任何类型治疗相关的报告。该评价结合使用了 PubMed 和 EMBASE 数据库,是对 2010 年 6 月 30 日进行的早期评价的更新,使用的是相同的搜索字符串。合格的出版物包括那些在接受治疗和对照组中都有报告了结果的出版物,这些研究要么是同时进行的,要么是作为前后病例设计的一部分。我们没有包括仅包含与 DFI 的定义或诊断相关的信息,但不包含治疗信息的研究。本次搜索仅确定了自上次搜索以来符合我们标准的 7 篇新文章,总计来自世界文献的 40 篇文章。确定的文章包括 37 项随机对照试验(RCT)和 3 项同期对照队列研究,包括手术程序、局部防腐剂、负压伤口治疗和高压氧的使用研究。其中有 15 项 RCT 比较了新抗生素制剂与传统疗法在治疗皮肤和软组织感染方面的结果。此外,有 10 项 RCT 和 1 项队列研究比较了糖尿病足骨髓炎的不同治疗方法。不同抗生素方案的比较结果通常表明,新引入的抗生素方案似乎与传统疗法一样有效(在一项研究中也更具成本效益),但有一项研究未能证明新抗生素与标准药物相比不具有非劣效性。总体而言,可用的文献在研究数量和设计质量方面都受到限制。因此,我们的系统评价几乎没有证据可以推荐 DFI 的治疗方法。非常需要进一步设计良好的试验,以便为糖尿病患者的皮肤和软组织感染和骨髓炎的最佳治疗做出决策提供有力的数据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验