IWGDF

Heemstede, Netherlands
Heemstede, Netherlands
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Peters E.J.G.,VU University Amsterdam | Lipsky B.A.,University of Washington | Berendt A.R.,University of Oxford | Embil J.M.,University of Manitoba | And 5 more authors.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews | Year: 2012

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot expert panel on infection conducted a systematic review of the published evidence relating to treatment of foot infection in diabetes. Our search of the literature published prior to August 2010 identified 7517 articles, 29 of which fulfilled predefined criteria for detailed data extraction. Four additional eligible papers were identified from other sources. Of the total of 33 studies, 29 were randomized controlled trials, and four were cohort studies. Among 12 studies comparing different antibiotic regimens in the management of skin and soft-tissue infection, none reported a better response with any particular regimen. Of seven studies that compared antibiotic regimens in patients with infection involving both soft tissue and bone, one reported a better clinical outcome in those treated with cefoxitin compared with ampicillin/sulbactam, but the others reported no differences between treatment regimens. In two health economic analyses, there was a small saving using one regimen versus another. No published data support the superiority of any particular route of delivery of systemic antibiotics or clarify the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy in either soft-tissue infection or osteomyelitis. In one non-randomized cohort study, the outcome of treatment of osteomyelitis was better when the antibiotic choice was based on culture of bone specimens as opposed to wound swabs, but this study was not randomized, and the results may have been affected by confounding factors. Results from two studies suggested that early surgical intervention was associated with a significant reduction in major amputation, but the methodological quality of both was low. In two studies, the use of superoxidized water was associated with a better outcome than soap or povidone iodine, but both had a high risk of bias. Studies using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor reported mixed results. There was no improvement in infection outcomes associated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy. No benefit has been reported with any other intervention, and, overall, there are currently no trial data to justify the adoption of any particular therapeutic approach in diabetic patients with infection of either soft tissue or bone of the foot. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Bakker K.,IWGDF | Apelqvist J.,Skåne University Hospital | Lipsky B.A.,University of Geneva | Lipsky B.A.,University of Oxford | And 2 more authors.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews | Year: 2016

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from 'Practical Guidelines' to 'Guidance'. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Schaper N.C.,CARIM and CAPHRI Institutes | Van Netten J.J.,Ziekenhuisgroep Twente | Apelqvist J.,Skåne University Hospital | Lipsky B.A.,University of Geneva | And 2 more authors.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews | Year: 2016

In this 'Summary Guidance for Daily Practice', we describe the basic principles of prevention and management of foot problems in persons with diabetes. This summary is based on the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidance 2015. There are five key elements that underpin prevention of foot problems: (1) identification of the at-risk foot; (2) regular inspection and examination of the at-risk foot; (3) education of patient, family and healthcare providers; (4) routine wearing of appropriate footwear; and (5) treatment of pre-ulcerative signs. Healthcare providers should follow a standardized and consistent strategy for evaluating a foot wound, as this will guide further evaluation and therapy. The following items must be addressed: type, cause, site and depth, and signs of infection. There are seven key elements that underpin ulcer treatment: (1) relief of pressure and protection of the ulcer; (2) restoration of skin perfusion; (3) treatment of infection; (4) metabolic control and treatment of co-morbidity; (5) local wound care; (6) education for patient and relatives; and (7) prevention of recurrence. Finally, successful efforts to prevent and manage foot problems in diabetes depend upon a well-organized team, using a holistic approach in which the ulcer is seen as a sign of multi-organ disease, and integrating the various disciplines involved. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


PubMed | Almelo and Hengelo, Skåne University Hospital, IWGDF and University of Geneva
Type: | Journal: Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews | Year: 2016

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from Practical Guidelines to Guidance. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems.


PubMed | CARIM and CAPHRI Institutes, Skåne University Hospital, IWGDF, University of Geneva and Ziekenhuisgroep Twente
Type: | Journal: Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews | Year: 2016

In this Summary Guidance for Daily Practice, we describe the basic principles of prevention and management of foot problems in persons with diabetes. This summary is based on the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidance 2015. There are five key elements that underpin prevention of foot problems: (1) identification of the at-risk foot; (2) regular inspection and examination of the at-risk foot; (3) education of patient, family and healthcare providers; (4) routine wearing of appropriate footwear; and (5) treatment of pre-ulcerative signs. Healthcare providers should follow a standardized and consistent strategy for evaluating a foot wound, as this will guide further evaluation and therapy. The following items must be addressed: type, cause, site and depth, and signs of infection. There are seven key elements that underpin ulcer treatment: (1) relief of pressure and protection of the ulcer; (2) restoration of skin perfusion; (3) treatment of infection; (4) metabolic control and treatment of co-morbidity; (5) local wound care; (6) education for patient and relatives; and (7) prevention of recurrence. Finally, successful efforts to prevent and manage foot problems in diabetes depend upon a well-organized team, using a holistic approach in which the ulcer is seen as a sign of multi-organ disease, and integrating the various disciplines involved.


PubMed | CARIM and CAPHRI Institutes, Skåne University Hospital, IWGDF, University of Geneva and Ziekenhuisgroep Twente
Type: | Journal: Diabetes research and clinical practice | Year: 2017

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. To prevent, or at least reduce, the adverse effects of foot problems in diabetes, the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF; www.iwgdf.org) was founded in 1996, consisting of experts from almost all the disciplines involved in the care of patients with diabetes and foot problems. An important output of the IWGDF is the international consensus guidance, continuously updated since 1999. To date, the publications have been translated into 26 languages, and more than 100,000 copies have been distributed globally. The Summary Guidance for Daily Practice summarises the essentials of prevention and management of foot problems in persons with diabetes for clinicians who work with these patients on a daily basis. This guidance is the result of a long and careful process that started with the empaneling in 2013 of five working groups consisting of 49 international experts. These experts performed seven targeted systematic reviews to provide the evidence supporting the five chapters of the IWGDF Guidance on prevention; footwear and offloading; diagnosis, prognosis and management of peripheral artery disease; diagnosis and management of foot infections; interventions to enhance healing. In total almost 80,000 studies were detected by our literature review. After review of the title and abstract the reviewers of the different working groups selected only studies that fulfilled a minimal set of quality criteria and ended up with 429 articles for complete quality analysis. The GRADE system was used to translate the evidence from the studies into recommendations for daily clinical practice. The rating of each recommendation takes into account both the strength and the quality of the evidence. The IWGDF Guidance 2015 makes a total of 77 recommendations on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. These recommendations were condensed by the editorial board into this Summary Guidance. Encouraging and aiding clinicians to follow the evidence-based recommendations of the IWGDF Guidance 2015, and in particular the principles outlined in the Summary Guidance, will likely result in a worldwide reduction in, and better outcomes of, foot problems in persons with diabetes, helping to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with this major health problem.


Game F.L.,University of Nottingham | Game F.L.,Derby Hospitals NHS Trust | Hinchliffe R.J.,St Georges Vascular Institute | Apelqvist J.,Skåne University Hospital | And 7 more authors.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews | Year: 2012

The outcome of management of diabetic foot ulcers is poor, and there is continuing uncertainty concerning optimal approaches to management. It was for these reasons that in 2006 the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) working group on wound healing undertook a systematic review of the evidence to inform protocols for routine care and to highlight areas which should be considered for further study. The same working group has now updated this review by considering papers on the interventions to improve the healing of chronic ulcers published between December 2006 and June 2010. Methodological quality of selected studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Selected studies fell into the following ten categories: sharp debridement and wound bed preparation with larvae and hydrotherapy; wound bed preparation using antiseptics, applications and dressing products; resection of the chronic wound; hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT); compression or negative pressure therapy; products designed to correct aspects of wound biochemistry and cell biology associated with impaired wound healing; application of cells, including platelets and stem cells; bioengineered skin and skin grafts; electrical, electromagnetic, lasers, shockwaves and ultrasound; other systemic therapies which did not fit in the above categories. Heterogeneity of studies prevented pooled analysis of results. Of the 1322 papers identified, 43 were selected for grading following full text review. The present report is an update of the earlier IWGDF systematic review, but the conclusion is similar: that with the exception of HBOT and, possibly, negative pressure wound therapy, there is little published evidence to justify the use of newer therapies. This echoes the conclusion of a recent Cochrane review and the systematic review undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guidelines Committee in the UK. Analysis of evidence presents considerable difficulties in this field particularly as controlled studies are few and the majority are of poor methodological quality. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Hinchliffe R.J.,St Georges Vascular Institute | Andros G.,Valley Presbyterian Hospital | Apelqvist J.,Skåne University Hospital | Bakker K.,IWGDF | And 9 more authors.
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews | Year: 2012

In several large recent observational studies, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was present in up to 50% of the patients with a diabetic foot ulcer and was an independent risk factor for amputation. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot therefore established a multidisciplinary working group to evaluate the effectiveness of revascularization of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD. A systematic search was performed for therapies to revascularize the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD from 1980-June 2010. Only clinically relevant outcomes were assessed. The research conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodological scores were assigned. A total of 49 papers were eligible for full text review. There were no randomized controlled trials, but there were three nonrandomized studies with a control group. The major outcomes following endovascular or open bypass surgery were broadly similar among the studies. Following open surgery, the 1-year limb salvage rates were a median of 85% (interquartile range of 80-90%), and following endovascular revascularization, these rates were 78% (70.5-85.5%). At 1-year follow-up, 60% or more of ulcers had healed following revascularization with either open bypass surgery or endovascular revascularization. Studies appeared to demonstrate improved rates of limb salvage associated with revascularization compared with the results of medically treated patients in the literature. There were insufficient data to recommend one method of revascularization over another. There is a real need for standardized reporting of baseline demographic data, severity of disease and outcome reporting in this group of patients. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Brownrigg J.R.W.,St Georges Vascular Institute | Apelqvist J.,Skåne University Hospital | Bakker K.,IWGDF | Schaper N.C.,CARIM and CAPHRI Institute | Hinchliffe R.J.,St Georges Vascular Institute
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery | Year: 2013

Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and represents the leading cause of hospitalization in patients with diabetes. Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), present in half of patients with DFU, is an independent predictor of limb loss and can be difficult to diagnose in a diabetic population. This review focuses on the evidence for therapeutic strategies in the management of patients with DFU. We highlight the importance of timely referral of patients presenting with a new foot ulcer to a multidisciplinary team, which includes vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Loading IWGDF collaborators
Loading IWGDF collaborators