ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the methodological quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diagnosis and management of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, Yimaitong databases, website of Diabetes Branch of Chinese Medical Association, website of Chinese Integrative Medicine Association and website of Peripheral Vascular Disease Professional Committee of Chinese Society of Microcirculation were electronically searched to collect relevant CPGs from inception to May, 2020. Four researchers independently evaluated the CPGs methodological quality by using AGREEⅡ tool.ResultsA total of 10 Chinese CPGs for diabetes foot were included. The standardized mean scores for various fields were 75.74% for scope and purpose, 36.58% for stakeholder involvement, 28.61% for rigor of development, 86.30% for clarity and presentation, 43.47% for applicability, and 9.44% for editorial independence. ConclusionsThere are merely a small quantity of diabetic foot guidelines in China, and the methodological quality is insufficient. Therefore, more attention should be focused on the establishment of guidelines in the future, so as to further improve the quality of Chinese diabetic foot guidelines.