Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes

S. O'Meara, E.A. Nelson, S. Golder, J.E. Dalton, D. Craig, C. Iglesias

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim:
To undertake a systematic review of the diagnostic performance of clinical examination, sample acquisition and sample analysis in infected foot ulcers in diabetes.

Methods:
Nineteen electronic databases plus other sources were searched. To be included, studies had to fulfil the following criteria: (i) compare a method of clinical assessment, sample collection or sample analysis with a reference standard; (ii) recruit diabetic individuals with foot ulcers; (ii) present 2 x 2 diagnostic data. Studies were critically appraised using a 12-item checklist.

Results:
Three eligible studies were identified, one each on clinical examination, sample collection and sample analysis. For all three, study groups were heterogeneous with respect to wound type and a small proportion of participants had foot ulcers due to diabetes. No studies identified an optimum reference standard. Other methodological problems included non-blind interpretation of tests and the time lag between index and reference tests. Individual signs or symptoms of infection did not prove to be useful tests when assessed against punch biopsy as the reference standard. The wound swab did not perform well when assessed against tissue biopsy. Semiquantitative analysis of wound swab might be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. The limitations of these findings and their impact on recommendations from relevant clinical guidelines are discussed.

Conclusion:
Given the importance of this topic, it is surprising that only three eligible studies were identified. It was not possible to describe the optimal methods of diagnosing infection in diabetic patients with foot ulceration from the evidence identified in this systematic review.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)341-347
Number of pages7
JournalDiabetic Medicine
Volume23
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2006

Fingerprint

Foot Ulcer
Wounds and Injuries
Infection
Biopsy
Checklist
Signs and Symptoms
Foot
Databases
Guidelines

Keywords

  • diabetic foot ulcer
  • diagnosis
  • infection
  • systematic review

Cite this

O'Meara, S. ; Nelson, E.A. ; Golder, S. ; Dalton, J.E. ; Craig, D. ; Iglesias, C. / Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes. In: Diabetic Medicine. 2006 ; Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 341-347.
@article{62bc1789dcbf40238c8cedb0cb952a62,
title = "Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes",
abstract = "Aim:To undertake a systematic review of the diagnostic performance of clinical examination, sample acquisition and sample analysis in infected foot ulcers in diabetes.Methods:Nineteen electronic databases plus other sources were searched. To be included, studies had to fulfil the following criteria: (i) compare a method of clinical assessment, sample collection or sample analysis with a reference standard; (ii) recruit diabetic individuals with foot ulcers; (ii) present 2 x 2 diagnostic data. Studies were critically appraised using a 12-item checklist.Results:Three eligible studies were identified, one each on clinical examination, sample collection and sample analysis. For all three, study groups were heterogeneous with respect to wound type and a small proportion of participants had foot ulcers due to diabetes. No studies identified an optimum reference standard. Other methodological problems included non-blind interpretation of tests and the time lag between index and reference tests. Individual signs or symptoms of infection did not prove to be useful tests when assessed against punch biopsy as the reference standard. The wound swab did not perform well when assessed against tissue biopsy. Semiquantitative analysis of wound swab might be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. The limitations of these findings and their impact on recommendations from relevant clinical guidelines are discussed.Conclusion:Given the importance of this topic, it is surprising that only three eligible studies were identified. It was not possible to describe the optimal methods of diagnosing infection in diabetic patients with foot ulceration from the evidence identified in this systematic review.",
keywords = "diabetic foot ulcer, diagnosis, infection, systematic review",
author = "S. O'Meara and E.A. Nelson and S. Golder and J.E. Dalton and D. Craig and C. Iglesias",
year = "2006",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01830.x",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "341--347",
journal = "Diabetic Medicine",
issn = "0742-3071",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "4",

}

Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes. / O'Meara, S.; Nelson, E.A.; Golder, S.; Dalton, J.E.; Craig, D.; Iglesias, C.

In: Diabetic Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 4, 03.2006, p. 341-347.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes

AU - O'Meara, S.

AU - Nelson, E.A.

AU - Golder, S.

AU - Dalton, J.E.

AU - Craig, D.

AU - Iglesias, C.

PY - 2006/3

Y1 - 2006/3

N2 - Aim:To undertake a systematic review of the diagnostic performance of clinical examination, sample acquisition and sample analysis in infected foot ulcers in diabetes.Methods:Nineteen electronic databases plus other sources were searched. To be included, studies had to fulfil the following criteria: (i) compare a method of clinical assessment, sample collection or sample analysis with a reference standard; (ii) recruit diabetic individuals with foot ulcers; (ii) present 2 x 2 diagnostic data. Studies were critically appraised using a 12-item checklist.Results:Three eligible studies were identified, one each on clinical examination, sample collection and sample analysis. For all three, study groups were heterogeneous with respect to wound type and a small proportion of participants had foot ulcers due to diabetes. No studies identified an optimum reference standard. Other methodological problems included non-blind interpretation of tests and the time lag between index and reference tests. Individual signs or symptoms of infection did not prove to be useful tests when assessed against punch biopsy as the reference standard. The wound swab did not perform well when assessed against tissue biopsy. Semiquantitative analysis of wound swab might be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. The limitations of these findings and their impact on recommendations from relevant clinical guidelines are discussed.Conclusion:Given the importance of this topic, it is surprising that only three eligible studies were identified. It was not possible to describe the optimal methods of diagnosing infection in diabetic patients with foot ulceration from the evidence identified in this systematic review.

AB - Aim:To undertake a systematic review of the diagnostic performance of clinical examination, sample acquisition and sample analysis in infected foot ulcers in diabetes.Methods:Nineteen electronic databases plus other sources were searched. To be included, studies had to fulfil the following criteria: (i) compare a method of clinical assessment, sample collection or sample analysis with a reference standard; (ii) recruit diabetic individuals with foot ulcers; (ii) present 2 x 2 diagnostic data. Studies were critically appraised using a 12-item checklist.Results:Three eligible studies were identified, one each on clinical examination, sample collection and sample analysis. For all three, study groups were heterogeneous with respect to wound type and a small proportion of participants had foot ulcers due to diabetes. No studies identified an optimum reference standard. Other methodological problems included non-blind interpretation of tests and the time lag between index and reference tests. Individual signs or symptoms of infection did not prove to be useful tests when assessed against punch biopsy as the reference standard. The wound swab did not perform well when assessed against tissue biopsy. Semiquantitative analysis of wound swab might be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. The limitations of these findings and their impact on recommendations from relevant clinical guidelines are discussed.Conclusion:Given the importance of this topic, it is surprising that only three eligible studies were identified. It was not possible to describe the optimal methods of diagnosing infection in diabetic patients with foot ulceration from the evidence identified in this systematic review.

KW - diabetic foot ulcer

KW - diagnosis

KW - infection

KW - systematic review

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01830.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01830.x

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 341

EP - 347

JO - Diabetic Medicine

JF - Diabetic Medicine

SN - 0742-3071

IS - 4

ER -