Wang Hong-Tao, Yuan Jin-Qiu, Zhang Bin, Dong Mao-Long, Mao Chen, Hu Dahai
Burns Centre of PLA, Department of Burns and Cutaneous Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, 169, Changle West Road, Xi'an, Shanxi Province, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 28;6(6):CD011979. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011979.pub2.
Foot ulcers are a disabling complication of diabetes that affect 15% to 25% of people with diabetes at some time in their lives. Phototherapy is a relatively new, non-invasive, and pain-free treatment method, which promotes the ulcer repair process through multiple mechanisms such as increased cell growth and vascular activity. Phototherapy may be used as an alternative approach for the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes, but the evidence for its effect compared with placebo or other treatments has not yet been established.
To assess the effects of phototherapy for the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (11 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (11 October 2016), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) (11 October 2016), Ovid Embase (11 October 2016), EBSCO CINAHL Plus (11 October 2016), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (24 June 2017). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies on 24 June 2017, and screened reference lists to identify additional studies. We used no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials that 1) compared phototherapy with sham phototherapy, no phototherapy, or other physical therapy modalities, 2) compared different forms of phototherapy, or 3) compared phototherapy of different output power, wavelength, power density, or dose range, in adults with diabetes and an open foot ulcer of any severity, in any setting.
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We combined the study outcomes when appropriate.
Eight trials with 316 participants met the inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies were single-centre studies that were carried out in clinics or hospitals with a sample size ranging from 14 to 84. We generally considered the included studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias, as they had one domain at high risk of bias, or three or more domains at unclear risk of bias.We did not identify any studies that reported valid data for time to complete wound healing. Meta-analysis of four studies including 116 participants indicated that participants receiving phototherapy may experience a greater proportion of wounds completely healed during follow-up compared with those receiving no phototherapy/placebo (64.5% for the phototherapy group versus 37.0% for the no phototherapy/placebo group; risk ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 2.28; low-quality evidence, downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). Two studies mentioned adverse events in the results; one study with 16 participants suggested that there were no device-related adverse events, and the other study with 14 participants suggested that there was no clear difference between phototherapy and placebo group.Four studies reported change in ulcer size, but primarily due to high heterogeneity, they were not combined. Results from individual trials (including 16 participants to 84 participants) generally suggested that after two to four weeks of treatment phototherapy may result in a greater reduction in ulcer size but the quality of the evidence was low due to unclear risk of bias in the original trial and small sample size. We based the analyses for quality of life and amputations on only one study each (28 participants and 23 participants respectively); both outcomes showed no clear difference between the phototherapy group and the no phototherapy/placebo group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of randomised trials suggested that phototherapy, when compared to no phototherapy/placebo, may increase the proportion of wounds completely healed during follow-up and may reduce wound size in people with diabetes, but there was no evidence that phototherapy improves quality of life. Due to the small sample size and methodological flaws in the original trials, the quality of the evidence was low, which reduces our confidence in these results. Large, well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm whether phototherapy could be an effective option for the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
足部溃疡是糖尿病的一种致残性并发症,一生中某些时候会影响15%至25%的糖尿病患者。光疗是一种相对较新的、非侵入性且无痛的治疗方法,它通过多种机制促进溃疡修复过程,如增加细胞生长和血管活性。光疗可作为糖尿病患者足部溃疡治疗的一种替代方法,但与安慰剂或其他治疗方法相比,其效果的证据尚未确立。
评估光疗对糖尿病患者足部溃疡的治疗效果。
我们检索了Cochrane伤口专业注册库(2016年10月11日)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆,2016年第10期)、Ovid MEDLINE(2016年10月11日)、Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他未索引引文)(2016年10月11日)、Ovid Embase(2016年10月11日)、EBSCO CINAHL Plus(2016年10月11日)和中国知网(2017年6月24日)。我们还检索了临床试验注册库,以查找2017年6月24日正在进行和未发表的研究,并筛选参考文献列表以识别其他研究。我们对语言、发表日期或研究环境没有限制。
随机对照试验或整群随机对照试验,条件为:1)将光疗与假光疗、无光疗或其他物理治疗方式进行比较;2)比较不同形式的光疗;3)比较不同输出功率、波长、功率密度或剂量范围的光疗,研究对象为患有糖尿病且有任何严重程度开放性足部溃疡的成年人,研究环境不限。
两位综述作者独立进行研究选择、数据提取和“偏倚风险”评估。我们在适当的时候合并研究结果。
八项试验共316名参与者符合纳入标准。纳入的研究大多为单中心研究,在诊所或医院进行,样本量从14到84不等。我们一般认为纳入的研究存在不明确或高偏倚风险,因为它们有一个领域存在高偏倚风险,或三个或更多领域存在不明确偏倚风险。我们未发现任何报告伤口完全愈合时间有效数据的研究。对四项共116名参与者的研究进行的荟萃分析表明,与未接受光疗/安慰剂的参与者相比,接受光疗的参与者在随访期间伤口完全愈合的比例可能更高(光疗组为64.5%,未接受光疗/安慰剂组为37.0%;风险比1.57,95%置信区间1.08至2.28;低质量证据,因研究局限性和不精确性而降级)。两项研究在结果中提到了不良事件;一项有16名参与者的研究表明没有与设备相关的不良事件,另一项有14名参与者的研究表明光疗组和安慰剂组之间没有明显差异。四项研究报告了溃疡大小的变化,但主要由于异质性高,未进行合并。个别试验(包括16名至84名参与者)的结果一般表明,治疗两至四周后,光疗可能使溃疡大小有更大程度的减小,但由于原始试验中偏倚风险不明确且样本量小,证据质量较低。我们对生活质量和截肢的分析分别仅基于一项研究(分别为28名参与者和23名参与者);两个结果均表明光疗组和未接受光疗/安慰剂组之间没有明显差异。
这项对随机试验的系统评价表明,与未接受光疗/安慰剂相比,光疗可能会增加随访期间伤口完全愈合的比例,并可能减小糖尿病患者的伤口大小,但没有证据表明光疗能改善生活质量。由于原始试验样本量小且存在方法学缺陷,证据质量较低,这降低了我们对这些结果的信心。需要开展大型、设计良好的随机对照试验来确认光疗是否可能是治疗糖尿病患者足部溃疡的有效选择。