Search

AIMS: Diabetes guidelines recommend screening for the risk of foot ulceration but vary substantially in the underlying evidence base. Our purpose was to derive and validate a prognostic model of independent risk factors for foot ulceration in diabetes using all available individual patient data from cohort studies conducted worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 10 cohort studies of risk factors in the prediction of foot ulceration in diabetes. Predictors were selected for plausibility, availability and low heterogeneity. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for foot ulceration by ulceration history, monofilament insensitivity, any absent pedal pulse, age, sex and diabetes duration. RESULTS: The 10 studies contained data from 16 385 participants. A history of foot ulceration produced the largest OR [6.59 (95% CI 2.49 to 17.45)], insensitivity to a 10 g monofilament [3.18 (95% CI 2.65 to 3.82)] and any absent pedal pulse [1.97 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.39)] were consistently, independently predictive. Combining three predictors produced sensitivities between 90.0% (95% CI 69.9% to 97.2%) and 95.3% (95% CI 84.5% to 98.7%); the corresponding specificities were between 12.1% (95% CI 8.2% to 17.3%) and 63.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This prognostic model of only three risk factors, a history of foot ulceration, an inability to feel a 10 g monofilament and the absence of any pedal pulse, compares favourably with more complex approaches to foot risk assessment recommended in clinical diabetes guidelines.

AIMS: Diabetes guidelines recommend screening for the risk of foot ulceration but vary substantially in the underlying evidence base. Our purpose was to derive and validate a prognostic model of independent risk factors for foot ulceration in diabetes using all available individual patient data from cohort studies conducted worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 10 cohort studies of risk factors in the prediction of foot ulceration in diabetes. Predictors were selected for plausibility, availability and low heterogeneity. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for foot ulceration by ulceration history, monofilament insensitivity, any absent pedal pulse, age, sex and diabetes duration. RESULTS: The 10 studies contained data from 16 385 participants. A history of foot ulceration produced the largest OR [6.59 (95% CI 2.49 to 17.45)], insensitivity to a 10 g monofilament [3.18 (95% CI 2.65 to 3.82)] and any absent pedal pulse [1.97 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.39)] were consistently, independently predictive. Combining three predictors produced sensitivities between 90.0% (95% CI 69.9% to 97.2%) and 95.3% (95% CI 84.5% to 98.7%); the corresponding specificities were between 12.1% (95% CI 8.2% to 17.3%) and 63.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This prognostic model of only three risk factors, a history of foot ulceration, an inability to feel a 10 g monofilament and the absence of any pedal pulse, compares favourably with more complex approaches to foot risk assessment recommended in clinical diabetes guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The Stroke and Cognition consortium (STROKOG) aims to facilitate a better understanding of the determinants of vascular contributions to cognitive disorders and help improve the diagnosis and treatment of vascular cognitive disorders (VCD). METHODS: Longitudinal studies with ≥75 participants who had suffered or were at risk of stroke or TIA and which evaluated cognitive function were invited to join STROKOG. The consortium will facilitate projects investigating rates and patterns of cognitive decline, risk factors for VCD, and biomarkers of vascular dementia. RESULTS: Currently, STROKOG includes 25 (21 published) studies, with 12,092 participants from five continents. The duration of follow-up ranges from 3 months to 21 years. DISCUSSION: Although data harmonization will be a key challenge, STROKOG is in a unique position to reuse and combine international cohort data and fully explore patient level characteristics and outcomes. STROKOG could potentially transform our understanding of VCD and have a worldwide impact on promoting better vascular cognitive outcomes.

Background 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? Methods 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

Background 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? Methods 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