Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID	858
First Author	F. Crawford
Journal	BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2022
URL	https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y
Keywords	• Expertise • Reproducibility • Low reporting quality • Searching • Low methodological quality • Risk of bias • Endocrinology
Problem(s)	• High risk of bias (ROBIS) • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Poor execution of narrative synthesis
Number of systematic reviews included	30
Summary of Findings	From 30 included systematic reviews of foot ulcer prevention in diabetes indexed across 6 databases up to 17th May 2021. Many of the 30 included systematic reviews were poorly reported and have fundamental methodological shortcomings (assessed using ROBIS) associated with increased risk of bias. Most concerns relate to vague inclusion criteria (60%), weak search or selection strategies (70%) and quality appraisal methods (53%) and inexpert conduct and interpretation of quantitative and narrative evidence syntheses (57%).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes