G‐CSF + standard treatment vs usual care: Surgical intervention
G‐CSF + standard treatment may leads to lower need for surgery: Overall Surgical Interventions compared with usual treatment (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
G‐CSF + standard treatment vs usual treatment Need for surgery: Overall Surgical Interventions · patients with diabetic foot infection G‐CSF + standard treatment may leads to lower need for surgery: Overall Surgical Interventions compared with usual treatment (low certainty). Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.37 [0.2, 0.68] | 5 studies · 167 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.