Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Diabetes. Mar 15, 2020; 11(3): 78-89
Published online Mar 15, 2020. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v11.i3.78
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Ref.Study typeMale: Female ratioType 2 diabetes mellitus/Type 1 diabetesDuration of DiabetesHbA1c%Ulcer descriptionFollow-up months
Quilici et al[21]Cross-sectional study68 males and 32 femalesT2DM22% had for less than five yr; 24% had from 5-10 yr; 17% had from 10-15 yr; 16% had from 15-20 yr; 21% had for >20 yr-75% patients had Grade 4 ulcers; 20% had Grade 3 ulcers; 5% had Grade 2 ulcers-
Commons et al[26]Prospective study60% male and 40% femalesAll patients had T1DM, except of 7 patients-Median value was 8.8%Diabetic patients with ulcers or foot infections were referred14 mo
Barwell et al[28]Combination of literature review-T1DM and T2DM--Standardized using validated classifications schemes such as the University of Texas rating, SINBAD or IWGDF PEDIS-
Roth-Albin et al[24]Retrospective cohort study67.9% were males---Ulcer sizes > 1 cm252 wk
Fitzgerald et al[30]Retrospective study4:4-Average disease duration 22 yr-Active foot-ulcer with a wound swab taken15 mo
Kathirvel et al[22]Retrospective study74.6% males and 25.33% femalesT2DM< 5 yr - 40%; 5-10 yr - 34%; 10-15 yr - 17%; 15-20 yr - 7.3%; > 20 yr - 1.3%6%-7%Categorized into necrotic/non-necrotic; ulcers based on signs of infection-
Xie et al[16]Hospital-based retrospect study230 males and 158 femalesT2DM--Severity of ulcer was assessed by Wagner-Meggit classification system-
Dwedar et al[41]Observational prospective study48 males (57%) and 32 females (43%)-5-32 yr-Graded according to Wagner’s grade-
Abbas et al[45]Literature review-T2DM--Classified on the basis of wound debridement, pressure off-loading, glycemic control, surgical interventions, and occasionally other adjunctive measures-
Oliveira et al[46]Epidemiological, retrospective and descriptive study27 males and 30 females---Infected ulceration was associated with germs present in the community-
Table 2 Objective of the study, findings and outcome data
Ref.Methodology/ApproachFindingsOutcome
Quilici et al[21]Cross-sectional studyPrevalence of amputation was 42% due to the previous use of antimicrobials. Risk of amputation was 26% for patients who had less compliant with the diabetes treatmentHighlight factors for the management patients with diabetic foot infection
Commons et al[26]Prospective study was conducted among patients with diabetic foot infections, enrolled in Royal Darwin Hospital, were selected. The relation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus was also determinedP. aeruginosa and Methicillin resistant S. aureus infections were cured by long-term courses of antibiotics and increased hospital stayPrevalence of diabetic foot ulcer is directly and significantly related to the best bed days
Barwell et al[28]A literature review was conductedAntibiotic and antimicrobial resistance of Gram positive organisms occurred as a main challenge in the treatment of diabetic foot infectionProvides guideline as empirical evidence to support clinicians
Roth-Albin et al[24]Retrospective cohort study35 out of 40 patients were healed in 52 weeks. 7.1% underwent amputation and 8.9% died before receiving any kind of treatmentHealing rates significantly improved by proper and continued care
Fitzgerald et al[30]Retrospective exploratory studyDiabetes and Cardiovascular disease/peripheral-vascular disease was identified in 2 and 6 patients, respectively. 28 patients had foot ulcers and RA. Inflicted patients were treated with antirheumatic drugs and steroidsInaccurate diagnosis of ulcer infection leads to failure of microbiological analysis
Kathirvel et al[22]150 patients’ clinical examination, clinical history and microbiological profile were prospectively examined99 patients were isolated from MDRO. MDRO risk factors include; previous antibiotic usage, retinopathy, polymicrobial culture, presence of ulcer, antibiotic usage, ulcer size, history of amputation, peripheral vascular disease, neuropathy, and necrotic ulcerMDRO prevalence was high among diabetic patients with foot ulcers
Xie et al[16]Retrospective study was conducted using 207 bacteria from diabetic foot infections. Microbial and clinical information was also collectedGram negative bacteria were found to be more as compared to gram positive bacteria with, Staphylococcus and Enterobacteriaceae to be the most dominantThe antibiotic sensitivity and bacterial profile of diabetic foot ulcers varied with their types and grades
Dwedar et al[41]80 patients with diabetic foot infections were prospectively studiedGram negative bacteria were more common. Vancomycin was found to be the best against gram-positive bacteria; whereas, colistin, imipenem and amikacin were effective against gram-negative bacteriaKnowledge regarding antibiotic sensitivity is required for future treatment of diabetic foot ulcers
Abbas et al[45]Non-systematic researchAntibiotic therapy is necessary for several clinically infected woundsAntibiotic therapies should be used for treatment
Oliveira et al[46]Descriptive, retrospective and epidemiological study was used65% of cases suffered amputations. Staphylococci was the most common bacteria type. Three patients were found to be enterobacteria and second was, StaphylococciClindamycin and cephalexin were most resistant to bacteria
Table 3 Description of studies causative agents from diabetic foot ulcer
Ref.Total no of enrolled patientsNumber of patients with isolated strains/ with multiple strains n(%)Number of microorganisms, n (%)
Gram positive
Gram negative
Fungus
Aerobes
AnanerobesAerobes
Ananerobes
Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA)Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. (MRSA)Other Staphyloccus sp (Staphylococcus species)Streptocccus spEnterococcus spOther Gram positiveEnterobacteriaceac membersPseudomonas spAcinetobacter spOther gram negative sp
Quilici et al[21]100--------------
Commons et al[26]177--------------
Barwell et al[28]---------------
Roth-Albin et al[24]40--------------
Fitzgerald et al[30]28-+++-----++------
Kathirvel et al[22]150------17.9%----69.89%--
Xie et al[16]40595.8%43.2%, 41/95-65.2%, 62/95-20.0%, 19/9545.9%, 95/207-73.2%, 82/112--54.1%, 112/207-10.7%
Dwedar et al[41]807711.4%(10.1%46.8%-27.7%--10.8%-56.08%8.1%-
Abbas et al[45]---------------
Oliveira et al[46]66-22.7%-4.5%----------