Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes

Background: Diabetes – related lower limb amputations are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and are usually preceded by foot ulceration. The available systematic reviews of aggregate data are compromised because the primary studies report both adjusted and unadjusted estimates. As adjusted meta-analyses of aggregate data can be challenging, the best way to standardise the analytical approach is to conduct a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD). There are however many challenges and fundamental methodological omissions are common; protocols are rare and the assessment of the risk of bias arising from the conduct of individual studies is frequently not performed, largely because of the absence of widely agreed criteria for assessing the risk of bias in this type of review. In this protocol we propose key methodological approaches to underpin our IPD systematic review of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in diabetes. Review questions;

[1]  G. Valk,et al.  Complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Individual participant data meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies: state of the art? , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[3]  W. Jeffcoate,et al.  Variation in the recorded incidence of amputation of the lower limb in England , 2012, Diabetologia.

[4]  Thomas S. Rector,et al.  Chapter 12: Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests , 2012, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[5]  Susan Mallett,et al.  QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  E. Boyko,et al.  Risk stratification systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review , 2011, Diabetologia.

[7]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[9]  M. Kenward,et al.  Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Ewout W. Steyerberg,et al.  Validation of Prediction Models , 2019, Statistics for Biology and Health.

[11]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Obtaining Individual Patient Data from Randomised Controlled Trials , 2008 .

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, Epidemiology.

[13]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  T Fahey,et al.  Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2006, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[15]  Patrick Royston,et al.  Multiple Imputation of Missing Values: Update , 2005 .

[16]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  David Moher,et al.  Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology , 2000 .

[18]  Personal information in medical research: excerpts from draft guidelines. , 1999, Bulletin of medical ethics.

[19]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1998 .

[20]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. , 1997, JAMA.

[21]  Ian K Crombie,et al.  The pocket guide to critical appraisal. , 1996 .

[22]  L. Stewart,et al.  Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  F G Fowkes,et al.  Critical appraisal of published research: introductory guidelines. , 1991, BMJ.

[24]  H. Sox,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  T. Kangas [On the management of diabetes]. , 1968, Sairaanhoitaja. Sjukskoterskan.