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
Table 2 Objective of the study, findings and outcome data
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 |
- 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