Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jannink MJ, van Dijk H, de Vries J, Groothoff JW, Lankhorst GJ. A systematic review of themethodological quality and extent to which evaluation studies measure the usability of orthopaedicshoes. Cli Rehabil 2004;18:15-26.Kantor J, Margolis DJ. Treatment options for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: a cost-effectivenessanalysis. Dermatol Surg 2001;27:347-51.Karter AJ, Ferrara A, Liu JY, Moffet HH, Ackerson LM, Selby JV. Ethnic disparities in diabeticcomplications in an insured population. JAMA 2002;287:2519-27.Kastenbauer T, Sokol G, Auinger M, Irsigler K. Running shoes for relief of plantar pressure in diabeticpatients. Diabet Med 1998;15:518-22.Kastenbauer T, Sauseng S, Sokol G, Auinger M, Irsigler K. A prospective study of predictors for footulceration in Type 2 diabetes. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2001;91:343-50.Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE. Relation of glycemic control to diabetic microvascular complications indiabetes mellitus. Ann Inter Med 1996;124:90-6.Klein R, Moss S. A comparison of the study populations in the Diabetic Control and ComplicationsTrial and the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:745-54.Klenerman L, McCabe C, Cogley D, Crerand S, Laing P, White M. Screening for patients at risk ofdiabetic foot ulceration in a general diabetic outpatient clinic. Diabet Med 1996;13:561-3.Kruger S, Guthrie D. Foot care: knowledge retention and self-care practices. Diabetes Educ1992;18:487-90.Kumar S, Ashe HA, Parnell LN, Fernando DJ, Tsigos C, Young RJ, Ward JD, Boulton AJ. Theprevalence of foot ulceration and its correlates in Type 2 diabetic patients: a population-based study.Diabet Med 1994;11:480-4.Larsson J, Agardh CD, Apelqvist J, Stenstrom A. Long term prognosis after healed amputation inpatients with diabetes. Clin Orthop 1998;350:149-58.Larsson J, Apelqvist J, Agardh CD, Stenstrom A. Decreasing incidence of major amputation in diabeticpatients: a consequence of a multidisciplinary foot care team approach. Diabet Med 1995;12:770-6.Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, Quebedeaux TL, Fleischli JG. Practical criteria for screeningpatients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:157-62.Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell J, Boulton AJ. Predictive value of foot pressureassessment as part of a population-based diabetes disease management program. Diabetes Care2003a;26:1069-73.Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell J, Boulton AJ. Diabetic foot syndrome:evaluating the prevalence and incidence of foot pathology in Mexican Americans and non-Hispanicwhites from a diabetes disease management cohort. Diabetes Care 2003b;26:1435-8.Lavery LA, Vela SA, Fleischli JG, Armstrong DG, Lavery DC. Reducing plantar pressure in theneuropathic foot. A comparison of footwear. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1706-10.Lee JS, Lu M, Lee VS, Russell D, Bahr C, Lee ET. Lower extremity amputation. Incidence, riskfactors, and mortality in the Oklahoma Indian Diabetes Study. Diabetes 1993;42:876-82.Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M. Risk factors predicting lower extremity amputations inpatients with NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1996;19:607-12.104
LeMaster JW, Sugarman JR, Baumgardner G, Reiber GE. Motivational brochures increase the numberof medicare-eligible persons with diabetes making therapeutic footwear claims. Diabetes Care 200326:1679-84.Litzelman DK, Marriott DJ, Vinicor F. The role of footwear in the prevention of foot lesions in patientswith NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1997b;20:156-62.Litzelman DK, Marriott DJ, Vinicor F. Independent physiological predictors of foot lesions in patientswith NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1997a;20:1273-8.Litzelman DK, Slemenda CW, Langefeld CD, Hays LM, Welch MA, Bild DE, Ford ES, Vinicor F.Reduction of lower extremity clinical abnormalities in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetesmellitus. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:36-41.Lobmann R, Kayser R, Kasten G, Kasten U, Kluge K, Neumann W, Lehnert H. Effects of preventativefootwear on foot pressure as determined by pedobarography in diabetic patients: a prospective study.Diabet Med 2001;18:314-9.Malone JM, Snyder M, Anderson G, Bernhard VM, Holloway GA Jr, Bunt TJ. Prevention ofamputation by diabetic education. Am J Surg 1989;158:520-3.Mantey I, Foster AV, Spencer S, Edmonds ME. Why do foot ulcers recur in diabetic patients? DiabetMed 1999;16:245-9.Mason J, O'Keeffe C, McIntosh A, Hutchinson A, Booth A, Young RJ. A systematic review of footulcer in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. I: prevention. Diabet Med 1999;16:801-12.Masson EA, Hay EM, Stockley I, Veves A, Betts RP, Boulton AJ. Abnormal foot pressures alone maynot cause ulceration. Diabet Med 1989;6:426-8.Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Nelson RG, Greene T. A foot risk classification system to predict diabeticamputation in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care 1996;19:704-9.Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Sanders LJ, Janisse D, Pogach LM. Preventive foot care in people withdiabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21:2161-77.Mayfield JA, Sugarman JR. The use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament and other threshold testsfor preventing foot ulceration and amputation in persons with diabetes. J Fam Pract 2000;49(Suppl11):S17-29.McCabe CJ, Stevenson RC, Dolan AM. Evaluation of a diabetic foot screening and protectionprogramme. Diabet Med 1998;15:80-4.McGee SR, Boyko EJ. Physical examination and chronic lower-extremity ischemia. A critical review.Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1357-64.McGill M, Molyneaux L, Spencer R, Heng LF, Yue DK. Possible sources of discrepancies in the use ofthe Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Impact on prevalence of insensate food and workloadrequirements. Diabetes Care 1999;22:598-602.McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel VL, Reiber GE, Smith DG, Pecoraro RF. The independentcontributions of diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy in foot ulceration. How great are the risks?Diabetes Care 1995;18:216-9.Mazzuca SA, Moorman NH, Wheeler ML, Norton JA, Fineberg NS, Vinicor F, Cohen SJ, ClarkCM. The diabetes education study: a controlled trial of the effects of diabetes patienteducation. Diabetes Care 1986;9(1):1-10.105
Page 1:
National Evidence Based Guidelinesf
Page 4:
Research OfficersMs Linda SmithPodi
Page 7 and 8:
2.2 Issues for Foot Problems in Typ
Page 9:
• Aim to achieve the best possibl
Page 12 and 13:
Background - Peripheral Neuropathy
Page 14 and 15:
proportion of subjects with a durat
Page 16 and 17:
and an OR 1.1-7.8. This study also
Page 18 and 19:
Summary - Peripheral Neuropathy as
Page 20 and 21:
Section 2: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
Page 22 and 23:
predicting risk of amputation, 2.9
Page 24 and 25:
Summary - Peripheral Vascular Disea
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Evidence - Foot Deformity and Previ
Page 30 and 31:
people with both LJM and neuropathy
Page 32 and 33:
Summary - Foot Deformity and Previo
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Also in the Seattle study, 67 peopl
Page 38 and 39:
Summary - Ulcer as a Risk Factor fo
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
The other frequently reported metho
Page 44 and 45:
side; and 82% having the same resul
Page 46 and 47:
Evidence Table: Section 5Detection
Page 48 and 49:
Background - Clinical Detection of
Page 50 and 51:
pulse was bilaterally absent in 1.8
Page 52 and 53:
Evidence Table: Section 6AuthorClin
Page 54 and 55: Background - Frequency of Foot Exam
Page 56 and 57: Summary - Frequency of Foot Examina
Page 58 and 59: Section 8: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
Page 60 and 61: Behaviour assessment scores, measur
Page 62 and 63: Mazzuca et al (1986) studies 532 pe
Page 64 and 65: with before the programme, after 1-
Page 66 and 67: Evidence Table: Section 8AuthorEffe
Page 68 and 69: Background - Glycaemic Control and
Page 70 and 71: In a previous Japanese randomised s
Page 72 and 73: Evidence Table: Section 9AuthorGlyc
Page 74 and 75: Background - Footwear to Reduce Ulc
Page 76 and 77: period. In addition people without
Page 78 and 79: Comparisons of in-shoe foot pressur
Page 80 and 81: The rate of plantar callus formatio
Page 82 and 83: Evidence Table: Section 10AuthorFoo
Page 84 and 85: Background - Foot Clinics and Multi
Page 86 and 87: A prospective non randomised contro
Page 88 and 89: Summary - Foot Clinics and Multi-di
Page 90 and 91: Section 12: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
Page 92 and 93: and/or osteomyelitis; III - fore-fo
Page 94 and 95: Summary - Economic consequences•
Page 96 and 97: Section 13: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
Page 98 and 99: Some ethnic groups are associated w
Page 100 and 101: Evidence Table: Section 13AuthorSoc
Page 102 and 103: Calle-Pascual AL, Duran A, Diaz A,
Page 106 and 107: Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The 14-
Page 108 and 109: Soulier SM, Godsey C, Asay ED, Perr
Page 110 and 111: Diabetes Foot Problems: General Ref
Page 112 and 113: McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, St
Page 114 and 115: Diabetes Foot Problems: Other Refer
Page 116 and 117: Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS
Page 118 and 119: Garbalosa JC, Cavanagh PR, Wu G, Ul
Page 120 and 121: Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich
Page 122 and 123: Payne C. Regional variations of dia
Page 124 and 125: Tovi J, Svanborg E, Nilsson BY, Eng
Page 126 and 127: Criteria used to determine the suit
Page 128 and 129: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
show all

Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?