The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-22) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The authors have no financial competing interests.
FC is the Chief Investigator, and GDM the Principal Investigator with overall responsibility for the statistical analysis, together with CA and FMC they form the Data Management Committee and have day to day responsibility for the research. Together with JFP, AS,CRS, GPS,MJY and MM they form the research steering committee each of whom are co-investigators and have contributed to the design and writing of the research protocol. CAA,AJMB,EJB,TK,GPL,MM,MM-S,SJR-N,AV are the principal investigators/corresponding authors on all cohort studies identified by the review search strategy. They have contributed individual patient data to the meta analysis. Together with the Research Steering Committee and the independent advisors they form the international steering committee work closely with members of the data management committee in the preparation of the data. NC,WJJ,NL,TF,JT are the project independent advisors who make clinical and methodological contributions. They have collaborators status and are members of the International Steering committee. All authors read approved the final manuscript.
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.
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?
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception until early 2012 were searched and the corresponding authors of all eligible primary studies invited to contribute their raw data. We developed relevant quality assurance items likely to identify occasions when study validity may have been compromised from several sources. A confidentiality agreement, arrangements for communication and reporting as well as ethical and governance considerations are explained.
We have agreement from the corresponding authors of all studies which meet the eligibility criteria and they collectively possess data from more than 17000 patients. We propose, as a provisional analysis plan, to use a multi-level mixed model, using “study” as one of the levels. Such a model can also allow for the within-patient clustering that occurs if a patient contributes data from both feet, although to aid interpretation, we prefer to use patients rather than feet as the unit of analysis. We intend to only attempt this analysis if the results of the investigation of heterogeneity do not rule it out and the model diagnostics are acceptable.
This review is central to the development of a global evidence-based strategy for the risk assessment of the foot in patients with diabetes, ensuring future recommendations are valid and can reliably inform international clinical guidelines.
Additional file 1: Appendix 1: Flow diagram of the stages in an IPD review adapted from Stewart and Clark 199510. (DOC 125 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Additional file 2: Appendix 2: Embase and MEDLINE searches. (DOC 54 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM2_ESM.doc
Additional file 3: Appendix 3: Questionnaire to determine the methodological standards adopted in cohort studies evaluating the prognostic factors for foot ulceration in diabetes. (DOC 67 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM3_ESM.doc
Additional file 4: Appendix 4: List of the most common variables reported in cohort studies. (DOC 62 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM4_ESM.doc
Additional file 5: Appendix 5: Committees and members. (DOC 57 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM5_ESM.doc
Additional file 6: Appendix 6: Data agreement for the collaborators. (DOC 68 KB)12874_2012_895_MOESM6_ESM.doc
General Medical Services Contract. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/qof/indicators_detail.jsp?summary=13080 Checked 24/04/2011
McIntosh A, Peters J, Young R: Prevention and management of foot problems in type 2 diabetes: clinical guidelines and evidence. 2003, Sheffield: Sheffield University, NICE guideline
The International consensus on the diabetic foot. In International concensus on the diabetic foot. 2012, http://iwgdf.org/ [accessed 28/09/2012
Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network: The Management of Diabetes. A National Clinical Guideline (No 116) ISBN 978 1. 905813, March 2010. http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/116/index.html (accessed 22/01/2013), 58 2
Crawford F, Inkster M, Kleijnen J, Fahey T: Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Q J Med. 2007, 100 (2): 65-86. CrossRef
Dorresteijn JAN, Kriegsman DMW, Valk GD: Complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, CD007610-10.1002/14651858.CD007610.pub2. 1
Clark MJ, Stewart LA: Systematic Reviews In Health Care. Edited by: Egger M, Davey-Smith GD, Altman DG. 2001, London: BMJ Books, Obtaining individual patient data from randomised controlled trials, Meta analysis in context.
Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J: Chapter 6 Searching for studies. Edited by: Higgins JPT, Green S. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ accessed 22/01/13
Crombie IK: The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal. 1996, London: BMJ publishing group
Altman DG, Lyman GH: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Tr . 1998, 52: 289-303. 10.1023/A:1006193704132. CrossRef
Rector T, Taylor BC, Wilt TJ: Chapter 12: systematic review of prognostic tests. J Gen Int Med. 2012, 27 (suppl): S94-S101. CrossRef
Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG: Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. J Am Med Assoc. 1997, 277 (6): 488-494. 10.1001/jama.1997.03540300056034. CrossRef
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008, 61 (4): 344-349. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008. CrossRefPubMed
Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MMG, Sterne AV, Bossuyt PMM: QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011, 155-529-536
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Ingram O, Williamson CD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thaker SB: For the meta analysis of observaltional studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Meta analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. JAMA. 2000, 283 (15): 2008-12. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. CrossRefPubMed
Systematic reviews: CRDs Guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 2008, The University of York, http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm Accessed
Royston P: Multiple imputation of missing values: update. Stata J. 2005, 5: 188-201.
Steyerberg EW: Validation of prediction models. Clinical Prediction Models. A practical approach to development, validation and updating. 2009, US: Springer,
Medical Research Council (MRC) Ethics Series: Personal Information in Medical Research. http://www.mrc.ac.uk (accessed 14th May 2012)
PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2012, NHS National Institute of Health
- 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)
Francesca M Chappell
Gordon D Murray
Jacqueline F Price
Colin R Simpson
Gerard P Stansby
Matthew J Young
Caroline A Abbott
Andrew JM Boulton
Edward J Boyko
Graham P Leese
Stephen J Rith-Najarian
William J Jeffcoate
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II