Search

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes affects 537 million people globally, with 34% expected to develop foot ulceration in their lifetime. Diabetes-related foot ulceration causes strain on health care systems worldwide, necessitating provision of high-quality evidence to guide their management. Given heterogeneity of reported outcomes, a core outcome set (COS) was developed to standardize outcome measures in studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The COS was developed using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. A systematic review and patient interviews generated a long list of outcomes that were rated by patients and experts using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1 [not important] to 9 [critical]) in the first round of the Delphi survey. Based on predefined criteria, outcomes without consensus were reprioritized in a second Delphi round. Critical outcomes and those without consensus after two Delphi rounds were discussed in the consensus meeting where the COS was ratified. RESULTS: The systematic review and patient interviews generated 103 candidate outcomes. The two consecutive Delphi rounds were completed by 336 and 176 respondents, resulting in an overall second round response rate of 52%. Of 37 outcomes discussed in the consensus meeting (22 critical and 15 without consensus after the second round), 8 formed the COS: wound healing, time to healing, new/recurrent ulceration, infection, major amputation, minor amputation, health-related quality of life, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed COS for studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration was developed using COMET methodology. Its adoption by the research community will facilitate assessment of comparative effectiveness of current and evolving interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Diabetic foot disease: Assessing adherence of national acute and screening referral pathways with NICE guidelines" explores the challenges and implications of diabetic foot disease, including foot ulceration and infection, within the diabetic population. The study assesses the compliance of Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) in England with NICE guidelines for diabetic foot referrals, revealing areas of non-compliance in referral timelines and screening regularity. The findings suggest the need for further research to understand how ICBs without referral information are adhering to guidelines and to improve patient outcomes through timely referrals and correct screening appointments. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Financial Sciences / Nauki o Finansach is the property of Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wroclawiu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the compression therapy for uncomplicated varicose veins (C2) as recommended by the Society for Vascular Surgery/American Venous Forum. It discusses how although it should not be used in pregnancy, its non-invasive nature and lower cost for interventional treatment, and the lack of consensus for the use of compression therapy.

Copyright of Financial Sciences / Nauki o Finansach is the property of Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wroclawiu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Standardisation of referral pathways and the transfer of patients with acute aortic syndromes (AAS) to regional centres are recommended by NHS England in the Acute Aortic Dissection Toolkit. The aim of the Transfer of Thoracic Aortic Vascular Emergencies to Regional Specialist INstitutes Group study was to establish an interdisciplinary consensus on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS to specialist high-volume aortic centres., Methods: Consensus on the key aspects of interhospital transfer of patients with AAS was established using the Delphi method, in line with Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies guidelines. A national patient charity for aortic dissection was involved in the design of the Delphi study. Vascular and cardiothoracic surgeons, emergency physicians, interventional radiologists, cardiologists, intensivists and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were invited to participate via their respective professional societies., Results: Three consecutive rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were completed by 212, 101 and 58 respondents, respectively. Using predefined consensus criteria, 60 out of 117 (51%) statements from the survey were included in the consensus statement. The study concluded that patients can be taken directly to a specialist aortic centre if they have typical symptoms of AAS on the background of known aortic disease or previous aortic intervention. Accepted patients should be transferred in a category 2 ambulance (response time <18 min), ideally accompanied by transfer-trained personnel or Adult Critical Care Transfer Services. A clear plan should be agreed in case of a cardiac arrest occurring during the transfer. Patients should reach the aortic centre within 4 hours of the initial referral from their local hospital., Conclusions: This consensus statement is the first set of national interdisciplinary recommendations on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS. Its implementation is likely to contribute to safer and more standardised emergency referral pathways to regional high-volume specialist aortic units., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)