Title |
Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS)
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-22 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Fay Crawford, Chantelle Anandan, Francesca M Chappell, Gordon D Murray, Jacqueline F Price, Aziz Sheikh, Colin R Simpson, Martin Maxwell, Gerard P Stansby, Matthew J Young, Caroline A Abbott, Andrew JM Boulton, Edward J Boyko, Thomas Kastenbauer, Graham P Leese, Matteo Monami, Matilde Monteiro-Soares, Stephen J Rith-Najarian, Aristidis Veves, Nikki Coates, William J Jeffcoate, Nicola Leech, Tom Fahey, Jayne Tierney |
Abstract |
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. What are the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes?2. Can the data from each study be adjusted for a consistent set of adjustment factors?3. Does the model accuracy change when patient populations are stratified according to demographic and/or clinical characteristics? |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 50% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
Ireland | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 98 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
Researcher | 11 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 10% |
Other | 31 | 30% |
Unknown | 14 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 42% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
Other | 10 | 10% |
Unknown | 25 | 24% |