Table 4

Summary of a comparison of the systematic reviews preceding this current systematic review

Number of Systematic reviewsReviewStudies included (n)Study typeTotal sample sizeFollow-up periodStudy periodType of woundParticipant typeIntervention typeOutcomesSR/MA methodology
evidence grading		Conclusions
10 (Prior SRs)SR4–104–8 RCTs (2 - 4
pooled)		149–57510 days–24 weeks1989–2007DFU, ischemic, venousPatients with and without diabetes

  • Alginates

  • Foam

  • Film

  • Hydrogel

  • Hydrocolloid

  • Hydrotherapy

  • Larva

  • Sharp

  • LFU

  • Amputation

  • Infection

  • HRQoL

  • Ulcer healing

  • Time to complete healing

  • Recurrence

  • Adverse events

5 CR/GRADE
and
5 other SR
no meta-regression		‘No evidence,
insufficient evidence


low evidence


moderate evidence for hydrogel uncertain


moderate for hydrocolloid but not strong evidence’
1 (Current SR)SR/MA3030 RCTs
(11 pooled)		253910 days–24 weeks1992–2012DFUPatients with diabetes

  • Alginates

  • Foam

  • Film

  • Hydrogel

  • Hydrocolloid

  • Hydrotherapy

  • Larva

  • Silver dressing

  • Sharp

  • LFU

  • 19 comparisons

  • Amputations

  • Infection

  • HRQoL

  • Ulcer healing

  • Time to complete healing

  • Recurrence

  • Cost

SR/MA
and
meta-regression
and
GRADE approach		Very low to low evidence

  • The data were adapted from Mason et al,77 Game et al,78 Voight et al, Hinchliffe et al,79 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group 2010, and Dumville et al.20

  • CR, Cochrane Review; DFU, diabetic foot ulceration; GRADE, (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations); LFU, Low Frequency Ultrasound; MA, meta-analysis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SR, systematic review.