Efficacy of plantar foot temperature monitoring in preventing ulcers in individuals with diabetes: An umbrella review protocol

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus often leads to foot ulcers, which can result in amputations and significantly affect quality of life. Monitoring plantar foot temperature has emerged as a promising intervention for preventing these ulcers. This study aims to examine the potential benefits of plantar foot temperature monitoring in preventing ulcers in individuals with diabetes mellitus. The umbrella review protocol will follow the guidelines set forth by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Participants aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, and without any active ulcers at the commencement of the study, will be included. We will consider studies that monitor plantar foot temperature using thermometry and thermography. Two independent reviewers will carry out the study location selection and data extraction, employing a modified and validated JBI extraction tool. The methodological quality of the studies included will be evaluated using both the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses, as well as the AMSTAR-2 tool. This systematic review is registered under PROSPERO number CRD42024509838. Data on the effectiveness of interventions for monitoring plantar foot temperature to prevent ulcers in individuals with diabetes will be collected and summarized. A citation matrix will analyze the overlap of primary studies, and meta-analysis will be performed if feasible. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE system. This protocol ensures rigorous execution by researchers and may aid in implementing evidence-based nursing interventions for ulcer prevention in diabetes.

Keywords

Diabetes mellitus / Foot ulcer / Thermometry / Thermography / Umbrella review

References

[1] Thorne CS, Gatt A, DeRaffaele C, et al. Innovative single-sensor, in-shoe pressure and temperature monitoring device: A dynamic laboratory validation study. Gait & posture. 2023; 100: 70-4. PMid:36493685 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.11.013

[2] Khandakar A, Mahmud S, Chowdhury MEH, et al. Design and implementation of a smart insole system to measure plantar pressure and temperature. Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(19): 7599. PMid:36236697 https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197599

[3] Veneman T, Schaper NC, Bus SA. The concurrent validity, testretest reliability and usability of a new foot temperature monitoring system for persons with diabetes at high risk of foot ulceration. Sensors (Basel). 2021; 21(11): 3645. PMid:34073853 https://doi.org/10.3390/s21113645

[4] Niemann U, Spiliopoulou M, Malanowski J, et al. Plantar temperatures in stance position: A comparative study with healthy volunteers and diabetes patients diagnosed with sensoric neuropathy. EBioMedicine. 2020; 54: 102712. PMid:32304997 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102712

[5] Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: Development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ. 2022; 378: e070849. PMid:35944924 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849

[6] Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. statement. Systematic reviews. 2016; 20(2): 148-60. PMid:25554246 https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

[7] De La Peña RG, Benhamú SB, Cristino MDJ, et al. Foot temperature as a predictor of ulcers in diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2019; 13(2): 115-29. PMid:30427732 https://doi.org/10.7547/17-131

[8] Galvão TF, Pereira MG. Systematic reviews of the literature: Steps for preparation. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde. 2014; 23(1): 183-4. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742014000100018

[9] Araújo WCO. Health information retrieval: construction, models and strategies. ConCI Convergências em Ciência da Informação. 2020; 3(2): 100-34. https://doi.org/10.33467/conci.v3i2.13447

[10] McGowan J, Sampson M, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016; 75: 40-6. PMid:27005575 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

[11] Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual review of psychology. 2019; 70: 747-70. PMid:30089228 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

[12] Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016; 5(1): 1-10. PMid:27919275 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

[13] Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1990.

[14] Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or nonrandomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017; 358: 4008. PMid:28935701 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

[15] Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2014; 67(4): 368-75. PMid:24581293 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007

[16] Hennessy EA, Johnson BT. Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Research synthesis methods. 2020; 11(1): 134-45. PMid:31823513 https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1390

[17] Casella G, Ferrándiz J, Peña D, et al. Statistical inference and Monte Carlo algorithms. Test. 1996; 5(2): 249-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02562621

[18] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650): 924-6. PMid:18436948 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD