Remotely Delivered Monitoring and Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Authors' conclusion
Remotely delivered healthcare of DFD is well received by patients and clinicians, but its effectiveness is unclear. High quality trials are needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of remotely delivered DFD management.
Study context
- Population
- Patients at risk of or with active diabetes-related foot disease (DFD), or clinicians managing them; systematic reviews published January 2000–June 2020, 5 databases8 reviews
- Participants
- 8,509 patients88 studies
- Comparison
- Remotely delivered monitoring or management vs standard care for DFD
- Outcome
- Effectiveness of remotely delivered DFD care
Methodological detailsAMSTAR-2 risk of bias assessment
- AMSTAR-2 risk of bias assessment
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Evidence on effectiveness was mixed
- Long-term ulcer healing not significantly different, telehealth vs standard care (meta-analyses)
- Mortality not significantly different, telehealth vs standard care (meta-analyses)
- Lower-limb amputation rate significantly decreased in one meta-analysis
Further findings
Studies evaluating remotely delivered monitoring or management of DFD
- Studies
- 36
- Participants
- 4357
Risk of bias of reviews (AMSTAR-2)
- Reviews with low risk of bias
- 1
- Most reviews had limited search strategies and poor reporting of participants
Patient and clinician perceptions of telehealth
- Generally positive, with limitations relating to access and use acknowledged
Cost-effectiveness
- Data limited; poor reporting prevented clear conclusions
Original publication
Remotely Delivered Monitoring and Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 19 May 2021. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →