A partir de cette page vous pouvez :
Retourner au premier écran avec les dernières notices... |
Descripteurs (mots clés)
Ajouter le résultat dans votre panier Affiner la recherche
Etendre la recherche sur niveau(x) vers le bas
An Analysis of Guideline Consensus for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers / Anthony B. Karabanow in Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, vol. 112, 02 (Avril-juin 2022)
[article]
in Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association > vol. 112, 02 (Avril-juin 2022)
Titre : An Analysis of Guideline Consensus for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers Type de document : article de périodique Auteurs : Anthony B. Karabanow ; Ina Zaimi ; Luis B. Suarez ; Mark D. Iafrati ; Geneve M. Allison Année de publication : 2022 Langues : Anglais (eng) Descripteurs (mots clés) : [Thésaurus Mesh]:U:Ulcère du pied:Ulcère du pied / diagnostic
[Thésaurus Mesh]:U:Ulcère du pied:Ulcère du pied / prévention et contrôle
[Thésaurus Mesh]Guide de bonnes pratiques
[Thésaurus Mesh]Pied diabétique
[Thésaurus Mesh]Relations interprofessionnelles
[Thésaurus Mesh]Revue de la littératureRésumé : Background: Multiple organizations have issued guidelines to address the prevention, diagnosis, and management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) based on evidence review and expert opinion. We reviewed these guidelines to identify consensus (or lack thereof) on the nature of these recommendations, the strength of the recommendations, and the level of evidence.
Methods: Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched in October 2018 using the MESH term diabetic foot, the key word diabetic foot, and the filters guideline or practice guideline. To minimize recommendations based on older literature, guidelines published before 2012 were excluded. Articles without recommendations characterized by strength of recommendation and level of evidence related specifically to DFU were also excluded. A manual search for societal recommendations yielded no further documents. Recommendations were ultimately extracted from 12 articles. Strength of evidence and strength of recommendation were noted for each guideline recommendation using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. To address disparate grading systems, we mapped the perceived level of evidence and strength of recommendations onto the American Heart Association guideline classification schema.
Results: Recommendations found in two or more guidelines were collected into a clinical checklist characterized by strength of evidence and strength of recommendation. Areas for future research were identified among recommendations based on minimal evidence, areas of controversy, or areas of clinical care without recommendations.
Conclusions: Through this work we developed a multidisciplinary set of DFU guidelines stratified by strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, created a clinical checklist for busy practitioners, and identified areas for future focused research. This work should be of value to clinicians, guideline-issuing bodies, and researchers. We also formulated a method for the review and integration of guidelines issued by multiple professional bodies.Permalink : https://bibliotheque.helb-prigogine.be/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id= [article]Exemplaires
Cote Support Localisation Section Disponibilité aucun exemplaire