Cited by 57Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFoot and Ankle SurgeryWound Healing and Treatments

Effectiveness of offloading interventions for people with diabetes-related foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Open access
Lazzarini, P. A., Armstrong, D. G., Crews, R. T., Gooday, C., Jarl, G., Kirketerp‐Moller, K., Viswanathan, V., Bus, S. A.·2024·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Offloading treatment is crucial to heal diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFU). This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of offloading interventions for people with DFU. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and trials registries for all studies relating to offloading interventions in people with DFU to address 14 clinical question comparisons. Outcomes included ulcers healed, plantar pressure, weight-bearing activity, adherence, new lesions, falls, infections, amputations, quality of life, costs, cost-effectiveness, balance, and sustained healing. Included controlled studies were independently assessed for risk of bias and had key data extracted. Meta-analyses were performed when outcome data from studies could be pooled. Evidence statements were developed using the GRADE approach when outcome data existed. RESULTS: From 19,923 studies screened, 194 eligible studies were identified (47 controlled, 147 non-controlled), 35 meta-analyses performed, and 128 evidence statements developed. We found non-removable offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed compared to removable offloading devices (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.41; N = 14, n = 1083), and may increase adherence, cost-effectiveness and decrease infections, but may increase new lesions. Removable knee-high offloading devices may make little difference to ulcers healed compared to removable ankle-high offloading devices (RR 1.00, 0.86-1.16; N = 6, n = 439), but may decrease plantar pressure and adherence. Any offloading device may increase ulcers healed (RR 1.39, 0.89-2.18; N = 5, n = 235) and cost-effectiveness compared to therapeutic footwear and may decrease plantar pressure and infections. Digital flexor tenotomies with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 2.43, 1.05-5.59; N = 1, n = 16) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, and may decrease plantar pressure and infections, but may increase new transfer lesions. Achilles tendon lengthening with offloading devices likely increase ulcers healed (RR 1.10, 0.97-1.27; N = 1, n = 64) and sustained healing compared to devices alone, but likely increase new heel ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: Non-removable offloading devices are likely superior to all other offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. Digital flexor tenotomies and Achilles tendon lengthening in combination with offloading devices are likely superior for some specific plantar DFU locations. Otherwise, any offloading device is probably superior to therapeutic footwear and other non-surgical offloading interventions to heal most plantar DFU. However, all these interventions have low-to-moderate certainty of evidence supporting their outcomes and more high-quality trials are needed to improve our certainty for the effectiveness of most offloading interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dmrr.3650

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although guidelines recommend regular debridement, defined as weekly or every other week, randomized clinical trials are lacking.

    “Although guidelines recommend regular debridement, defined as weekly or every other week, randomized clinical trials are lacking.52,53”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [53]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lazzarini, P. A., Armstrong, D. G., Crews, R. T., Gooday, C., Jarl, G., Kirketerp‐Moller, K., Viswanathan, V., & Bus, S. A.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science (US)
  • Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (GB)
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • Copenhagen Wound Healing Center Bispebjerg University Hospital Copenhagen Denmark
  • M.V. Hospital for Diabetes and Diabetes Research Centre (IN)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-06-08
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
e3650-e3650
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W4379927712
Cited by
57
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Queensland University of Technology
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF16SA0024126-3)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK124789)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
Keywords
diabetic foot ulcer, offloading devices, ulcer healing, plantar pressure, therapeutic footwear, Achilles tendon lengthening, amputation prevention, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, falls, adherence, new lesions
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Shoes, Wound Healing, Weight-Bearing, Diabetic Foot

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review