Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison: dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers

Aims/hypothesisFoot ulcers in people with diabetes are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment. Existing systematic reviews are limited by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of alternative dressings in a field where there are several different dressing options. We aimed to determine the relative effects of alternative wound dressings on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.MethodsThis study was a systematic review involving Bayesian mixed treatment comparison. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects on diabetic foot ulcer healing of one or more wound dressings. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status.ResultsFifteen eligible studies, evaluating nine dressing types, were included. Ten direct treatment comparisons were made. Whilst there was increased healing associated with hydrogel and foam dressings compared with basic wound contact materials, these findings were based on data from small studies at unclear or high risk of bias. The mixed treatment comparison suggested that hydrocolloid-matrix dressings were associated with higher odds of ulcer healing than all other dressing types; there was a high degree of uncertainty around these estimates, which were deemed to be of very low quality.Conclusions/interpretationThese findings summarise all available trial evidence regarding the use of dressings to heal diabetic foot ulcers. More expensive dressings may offer no advantages in terms of healing than cheaper basic dressings. In addition, evidence pointing to a difference in favour of ‘advanced’ dressing types over basic wound contact materials is of low or very low quality.

[1]  G. Lu,et al.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  W. Jeffcoate,et al.  A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes , 2008, Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews.

[3]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  M. Spraul,et al.  Prospective randomized controlled study of Hydrofiber® dressing containing ionic silver or calcium alginate dressings in non‐ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers , 2007, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[5]  J. Seeley,et al.  Diabetic foot ulcerations. A controlled, randomized comparison of two moist wound healing protocols: Carrasyn Hydrogel Wound dressing and wet-to-moist saline gauze. , 1998, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[6]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[7]  A. Veves,et al.  A randomized, controlled trial of Promogran (a collagen/oxidized regenerated cellulose dressing) vs standard treatment in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. , 2002, Archives of surgery.

[8]  J. Smith,et al.  Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  D. Armstrong,et al.  A systematic review of interventions to enhance the healing of chronic ulcers of the foot in diabetes , 2012, Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews.

[10]  J. Dumville,et al.  Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  W. Jeffcoate,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of the use of three dressing preparations in the management of chronic ulceration of the foot in diabetes. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[12]  David J. Margolis,et al.  Economic burden of diabetic foot ulcers and amputations , 2011 .

[13]  M. Edmonds,et al.  Comparing two dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. , 1994, Journal of wound care.

[14]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  J. Dumville,et al.  Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  Charles E. Leonard,et al.  Prevalence of diabetes, diabetic foot ulcer, and lower extremity amputation among Medicare beneficiaries, 2006 to 2008 , 2011 .

[17]  L. Quinn,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of a Semipermeable Polymeric Membrane Dressing for the Treatment of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers , 1994, Diabetes Care.

[18]  S Dias,et al.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  J. Giurini,et al.  Evaluation of a collagen-alginate wound dressing in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. , 1998, Advances in wound care : the journal for prevention and healing.

[20]  D G Altman,et al.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[21]  S D Walter,et al.  The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  M. Romanelli,et al.  Sodium carboxyl‐methyl‐cellulose dressings in the management of deep ulcerations of diabetic foot , 2001, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[23]  Andrew Johnson,et al.  Guidelines for the treatment of diabetic ulcers , 2006, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[24]  W. Jeffcoate,et al.  Diabetic foot ulcers , 2003, The Lancet.

[25]  V. Preedy,et al.  Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network , 2010 .