Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Olive Oil for diabetic foot ulcers

Discussion in 'Diabetic Foot & Wound Management' started by NewsBot, May 17, 2015.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The effect of topical olive oil on the healing of foot ulcer in patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind randomized clinical trial study in Iran
    Morteza Nasiri, Sadigheh Fayazi, Simin Jahani, Leila Yazdanpanah and Mohammad Hossein Haghighizadeh
    Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 2015, 14:38 doi:10.1186/s40200-015-0167-9
     
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    OMG!
    It was not randomized!!
    They claimed it was double blinded - it wasn't.
    Did way too many stats tests on data set and did not do a Bonferroni adjustment because of that --> none of their results would have been significantly different.

    Next.
     
  3. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    I will respond to your response and not the article. While I also questioned the use of "double blinded" study in this article, you summarily dismiss the findings based not on the content, but on the wording and process. One of the problems in any DFU treatment study are the plethora of variables involved. It is truly impossible to compare X to Z, when there are no consistencies within the variability presented...but one must start somewhere. In your world, which to this observer is very narrow and myopic, no discussion begins.
     
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    You continue to demonstrate your failure to understand research methods 101. That is NOT a shortcoming of the above study. The whole purpose of a randomized controlled trial is that the participants are randomized (therefore are matched on all variables) and controlled (the only difference between the groups is the intervention being tested). The above study got the "randomized" bit wrong, but got the "controlled" bit right. (they also got the analysis bit wrong as well).
     
  5. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    "...the participants are randomized (therefore are matched on all variables) and controlled". In actuality, that simply cannot be done...you can only hope that greater numbers of participants will reduce individual variance and error.
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    That is exactly how it is done. Every single epidemiologist or expert in research methodology will tell you exactly the same thing. It is also covered in research methods 101.
     
  7. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    redundant post
     
  8. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Really, Craig? EVERY SINGLE EPIDEMIOLOGIST? How many drug studies have you personally participated in? How many DFU treatment studies? Tell us how they were "set up" in order to reduce individual variance between participants? Please re-read your first post on this thread and tell me what your main complaints were again.

    (I'll grab some popcorn)
     
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Pretty much; I challenge you to find one that disagrees.
    Quite a few actually! They were all set up by randomization!
    1. It was not randomized
    2. It was not double blinded
    3. They did not do a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple stats tests.
     
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Pretty much; I challenge you to find one that disagrees.
    Quite a few actually! They were all set up by randomization!
    How many have you done?
    1. It was not randomized
    2. They did not do a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple stats tests.
     
  11. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member


    2004-A Double-blind Randomized, Parallel Group, Vehicle controlled,
    Multicenter study to Evaluate the Safety and Clinical Equivalence
    of XXXX cream to XXX cream 0.77% in the treatment of Tinea Pedis.

    2004-A prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating XXXX and XXX Gel 0.01 % in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers

    2003-2004-Open Label Study of the Safety and Efficacy of a XXX Topical patch in the Treatment of Distal Subungual Onychomycosis of the Toenails

    2001-2002 A Randomized, Double blind, Placebo Controlled Study of the Safety, Efficacy and Systemic Absorption of XXX Topical patch in the Treatment of Distal Subungual Onychomycosis of the Great Toenail

    1991-1995 -Co-investigator Diabetic Wound Healing RH PDGF.

    1995 Genzyme Tissue Repair; Transforming Growth Factor B2 in a Collagen Sponge for treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
     
  12. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Craig Payne's silence is deafening.
     
Loading...

Share This Page