Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers: public health and clinical implications - a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) has devastating complications and a lifetime occurrence of 15%-34%. Debridement of DFU is regarded as an intervention that accelerates ulcer healing and may reduce complications including amputations, infections, and poor quality of life (QoL), which have serious public health and clinical implications. A systematic review (SR) of SRs and of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses (MAs) on debridement of DFU that synthesizes all human experimental evidence is warranted.

OBJECTIVES

Are debridement methods in DFU beneficial over other forms and standard gauze dressings (control condition) in these outcomes?

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All SRs/MAs/RCTs comparing debridement methods for DFU with alternative methods of debridement and with control.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Adults with type 1/2 diabetes with DFU and any debridement method compared with alternative debridement methods or control.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Amputation rates, wound infections, QoL, proportion of ulcers healed, time to complete healing, ulcer recurrence, and treatment cost.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction/synthesis by two independent reviewers pooled using a random-effects model with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

10 SRs were retrieved and reported qualitatively. Six SRs included MAs. This SR included 30 studies, with 2654 participants, using 19 debridement combinations. The debridement methods were compared with findings pooled into MAs. Meta-regression (MR) did not identify significant predictors/moderators of outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

The studies may have been under-powered. The inclusion/exclusion criteria varied and the increased risk of bias contributed to low-quality evidence.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Weak evidence exists that debridement methods are superior to other forms of debridement or control in DFU.

IMPLICATIONS

Researchers should follow standardized reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Clinicians/investigators could use the findings from this SR/MA/MR in guiding patient-individualized decision making and designing future RCTs.