| Aim + background | Study design | Sample | Outcomes | Intervention | Results | Conclusion | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P |
Boutoille et al. [46] | Â | Â | Case-control | 34 | Â | Â | Y | Y | Â | Â | Â | Y | Â | Â | Â | Â |
25-9a | ||||||||||||||||
 | Reviewer comments: Unclear description of aim and background. New results were presented in the discussion. QoL in the partial foot and transtibial amputee cohorts were compared to non-amputee cohort with foot ulceration but not to each other. Detailed sample demographic information was not provided. Co-intervention: the foot ulcer group was receiving active treatment while the amputee group had completed rehabilitation. Power bias present in assessment of capacity for inclusion, as the participants’ doctor decided if they were able to complete the survey. High risk of type-1 error due to multiple t tests employed. Large variability in the results, making it difficult to detect meaningful differences. | |||||||||||||||
Peters et al. [43] | Y | Y | Case-control | 124 | Y | Â | Y | Y | Â | Â | Â | Y | Â | Y | Â | Â |
35-89a | ||||||||||||||||
 | Reviewer comments: Control bias: the case and control groups were significantly different in terms of: gender, duration of diabetes, and degree of neuropathy. QoL assessed with Sickness Impact Profile, focusing on functional status. Data pooled for persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputations (high level) and all levels of partial foot amputation (mid-level). A large variability in the results makes it difficult to detect meaningful differences. High chance of a Type 1 error given between group comparisons of multiple dependent variables. |