4.6 Article

Association between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic foot ulcer wound in diabetic subjects: A meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 55-62

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13836

Keywords

diabetic foot ulcer wound; severe; the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency; vitamin D deficiency; vitamin D levels

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis found that diabetic subjects with foot ulcer wounds had significantly lower vitamin D levels and higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and severe vitamin D deficiency compared with non-ulcerated diabetic subjects.
A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the association between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic foot ulcer wounds in diabetic subjects. A systematic literature search up to March 2022 incorporated 7586 subjects with diabetes mellitus at the beginning of the study; 1565 were using diabetic subjects with foot ulcer wounds, and 6021 were non-ulcerated diabetic subjects. Statistical tools like the dichotomous and contentious method were used within a random or fixed-influence model to establish the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the influence of vitamin D deficiency in managing diabetic foot ulcer wound. Diabetic subjects with foot ulcer wounds had significantly lower vitamin D levels (MD, -6.48; 95% CI, -10.84 to -2.11, P < .004), higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (<50 nmoL/L) (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.32-2.52, P < .001), and higher prevalence of severe vitamin D deficiency (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.65-3.89, P < .001) compared with non-ulcerated diabetic subjects. Diabetic subjects with foot ulcer wounds had significantly lower vitamin D levels, higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, and higher prevalence of severe vitamin D deficiency compared with non-ulcerated diabetic subjects. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available