Adjunctive rifampin therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Yanli Zhang
2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. S145-S161 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Berendt ◽  
E. J. G. Peters ◽  
K. Bakker ◽  
J. M. Embil ◽  
M. Eneroth ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos C Schechter ◽  
Mohammed K Ali ◽  
Benjamin B Risk ◽  
Adam D Singer ◽  
Gabriel Santamarina ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Diabetes is the leading cause of lower extremity nontraumatic amputation globally, and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually the terminal event before limb loss. Although guidelines recommend percutaneous bone biopsy (PBB) for microbiological diagnosis of DFO in several common scenarios, it is unclear how frequently PBBs yield positive cultures and whether they cause harm or improve outcomes. Methods We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials databases for articles in any language published up to December 31, 2019, reporting the frequency of culture-positive PBBs. We calculated the pooled proportion of culture-positive PBBs using a random-effects meta-analysis model and reported on PBB-related adverse events, DFO outcomes, and antibiotic adjustment based on PBB culture results where available. Results Among 861 articles, 11 studies met inclusion criteria and included 780 patients with 837 PBBs. Mean age ranged between 56.6 and 71.0 years old. The proportion of males ranged from 62% to 86%. All studies were longitudinal observational cohorts, and 10 were from Europe. The range of culture-positive PBBs was 56%–99%, and the pooled proportion of PBBs with a positive culture was 84% (95% confidence interval, 73%–91%). There was heterogeneity between studies and no consistency in definitions used to define adverse events. Impact of PBB on DFO outcomes or antibiotic management were seldom reported. Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests PBBs have a high yield of culture-positive results. However, this is an understudied topic, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and the current literature provides very limited data regarding procedure safety and impact on clinical outcomes or antibiotic management.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengzi Zhang ◽  
Jing Lu ◽  
Yali Jing ◽  
Sunyinyan Tang ◽  
Dalong Zhu ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 107638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyrstin L. Lane ◽  
Mohammed S. Abusamaan ◽  
Betiel Fesseha Voss ◽  
Emilia G. Thurber ◽  
Noora Al-Hajri ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 37S-45S.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarig Elraiyah ◽  
Juan Pablo Domecq ◽  
Gabriela Prutsky ◽  
Apostolos Tsapas ◽  
Mohammed Nabhan ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (Sup2) ◽  
pp. S19-S25 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Oliveira Paggiaro ◽  
Andriws Garcia Menezes ◽  
Alexandra Donizetti Ferrassi ◽  
Viviane Fernandes De Carvalho ◽  
Rolf Gemperli

Objective: The amniotic membrane has biological properties that are beneficial to the wound healing process of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Our aim is to analyse the scientific evidence found in literature on the use of the amniotic membrane to stimulate DFU healing. Method: A systematic review of amniotic membrane's influence was undertaken, using the search terms ‘placenta’ ‘diabetic foot’ ‘amnion’ and biological dressing’, assessing the outcomes ‘wound healing’ and ‘wound healing time’, in DFU. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomised controlled trials (RCT) were identified, and the risk of bias was analysed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted a meta-analysis of the two outcomes to evaluate the level of evidence. Results: We identified six clinical trials, with a total of 331 patients. The most common risks of bias in the studies were selection, attrition, and detection biases. From the meta-analysis, the difference of the intervention group (amnion) in relation to the control group was statistically significant. We found that wound healing in the group treated with amniotic membrane occurs 2.32 times more often and is 32 days faster in comparison with the group that used conventional dressings. Conclusion: There is statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of amniotic membrane in comparison with other conventional dressings. In addition, there is a clear tendency for the use of amniotic membrane treatment to result in a larger number of DFUs healing at a quicker rate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 109215
Author(s):  
Alexis Llewellyn ◽  
Jeannette Kraft ◽  
Colin Holton ◽  
Melissa Harden ◽  
Mark Simmonds

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document