Commentary

Judging the Evidence for Interventions

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Mayfield and coworkers provide important additional evidence supporting the inclusion of foot examinations as a routine part of the evaluation of patients with diabetes. The article by itself does not prove that these examinations are useful. Even with the whole weight of evidence in the literature, this is still a contentious issue. However, the study by Mayfield and colleagues lends additional support to this practice.

There are several limitations to their study, however. The study used a highly select population. As the authors note, the Gila River Indian community has one of the world’s highest reported rates of diabetes and amputations. It may be that diabetes in this population is a fundamentally different disease, and that amputations are more likely and foot examinations are less effective than in the general population. If this were the case, the findings of this study grossly underestimate the true impact of foot examinations. Or it may be that in this population foot examinations are more likely to be beneficial than in another population. If that were the case, the study grossly overestimates the impact of foot examinations for reducing amputation risk.

Each year our government spends billions of dollars on research, but some basic clinical questions remain unanswered. Should we adopt foot screening as a standard in diabetes care? If not, is there a subset of patients that would benefit from screening? If we do screen, how often should it be done? Each visit? Annually? Even simple questions like "What constitutes a quality foot examination?" go unanswered.

The answers may not be determined soon, but family physicians can play a key role in finding them. Our practice-based research networks contain a large number of patients with diabetes, and carefully designed studies can assess either retrospective or even prospective evaluations of diabetes care. Diabetes care is a major challenge, and family physicians provide the bulk of this care to patients. Perhaps we will also provide the answers to some of the key questions about quality care for this disease.

Acknowledgments

Dr Ganiats is a recipient of the American Academy of Family Physicians Advanced Research Training Grant.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Changes In Functional Status Related To health Maintenance Visits To Family Physicians
MDedge Family Medicine
How frequently should patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus be screened for retinopathy?
MDedge Family Medicine
How effective are antidepressant medications in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and nonulcer dyspepsia?
MDedge Family Medicine
Does losartan decrease all-cause mortality more than placebo or first-generation ACE inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe heart failure?
MDedge Family Medicine
What is the long-term prognosis of patients with Lyme disease?
MDedge Family Medicine
Is amoxicillin more effective than placebo in treating acute otitis media in children younger than 2 years?
MDedge Family Medicine
Can a program of manual physical therapy and supervised exercise improve the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee?
MDedge Family Medicine
Is spiral (helical) computed tomography useful for diagnosing pulmonary embolism?
MDedge Family Medicine
What are the benefits and risks associated with the use of benzodiazepines to treat insomnia?
MDedge Family Medicine
Strategies for Changing Clinicians’ Practice Patterns: A New Perspective
MDedge Family Medicine