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
Published online Mar 15, 2020. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v11.i3.78
Ref. | Study type | Male: Female ratio | Type 2 diabetes mellitus/Type 1 diabetes | Duration of Diabetes | HbA1c% | Ulcer description | Follow-up months |
Quilici et al[21] | Cross-sectional study | 68 males and 32 females | T2DM | 22% 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 study | 60% male and 40% females | All patients had T1DM, except of 7 patients | - | Median value was 8.8% | Diabetic patients with ulcers or foot infections were referred | 14 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 study | 67.9% were males | - | - | - | Ulcer sizes > 1 cm2 | 52 wk |
Fitzgerald et al[30] | Retrospective study | 4:4 | - | Average disease duration 22 yr | - | Active foot-ulcer with a wound swab taken | 15 mo |
Kathirvel et al[22] | Retrospective study | 74.6% males and 25.33% females | T2DM | < 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 study | 230 males and 158 females | T2DM | - | - | Severity of ulcer was assessed by Wagner-Meggit classification system | - |
Dwedar et al[41] | Observational prospective study | 48 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 study | 27 males and 30 females | - | - | - | Infected ulceration was associated with germs present in the community | - |
Ref. | Methodology/Approach | Findings | Outcome |
Quilici et al[21] | Cross-sectional study | Prevalence 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 treatment | Highlight 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 determined | P. aeruginosa and Methicillin resistant S. aureus infections were cured by long-term courses of antibiotics and increased hospital stay | Prevalence of diabetic foot ulcer is directly and significantly related to the best bed days |
Barwell et al[28] | A literature review was conducted | Antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance of Gram positive organisms occurred as a main challenge in the treatment of diabetic foot infection | Provides guideline as empirical evidence to support clinicians |
Roth-Albin et al[24] | Retrospective cohort study | 35 out of 40 patients were healed in 52 weeks. 7.1% underwent amputation and 8.9% died before receiving any kind of treatment | Healing rates significantly improved by proper and continued care |
Fitzgerald et al[30] | Retrospective exploratory study | Diabetes 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 steroids | Inaccurate 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 examined | 99 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 ulcer | MDRO 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 collected | Gram negative bacteria were found to be more as compared to gram positive bacteria with, Staphylococcus and Enterobacteriaceae to be the most dominant | The 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 studied | Gram 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 bacteria | Knowledge regarding antibiotic sensitivity is required for future treatment of diabetic foot ulcers |
Abbas et al[45] | Non-systematic research | Antibiotic therapy is necessary for several clinically infected wounds | Antibiotic therapies should be used for treatment |
Oliveira et al[46] | Descriptive, retrospective and epidemiological study was used | 65% of cases suffered amputations. Staphylococci was the most common bacteria type. Three patients were found to be enterobacteria and second was, Staphylococci | Clindamycin and cephalexin were most resistant to bacteria |
Ref. | Total no of enrolled patients | Number of patients with isolated strains/ with multiple strains n(%) | Number of microorganisms, n (%) | ||||||||||||
Gram positive | Gram negative | Fungus | |||||||||||||
Aerobes | Ananerobes | Aerobes | Ananerobes | ||||||||||||
Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) | Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. (MRSA) | Other Staphyloccus sp (Staphylococcus species) | Streptocccus sp | Enterococcus sp | Other Gram positive | Enterobacteriaceac members | Pseudomonas sp | Acinetobacter sp | Other 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] | 405 | 95.8% | 43.2%, 41/95 | - | 65.2%, 62/95 | - | 20.0%, 19/95 | 45.9%, 95/207 | - | 73.2%, 82/112 | - | - | 54.1%, 112/207 | - | 10.7% |
Dwedar et al[41] | 80 | 77 | 11.4% | (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% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
- Citation: Zubair M. Prevalence and interrelationships of foot ulcer, risk-factors and antibiotic resistance in foot ulcers in diabetic populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Diabetes 2020; 11(3): 78-89
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9358/full/v11/i3/78.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v11.i3.78