March 13, 2013
I am sorry that it has been so long since I put up a post. Things have been slightly hectic. Unfortunately, instead of reporting on new infectious disease information, with this entry I find myself responding to a story about my receiving payments to lecture from the pharmaceutical industry. The story ran today (3/13/13) in the Philadelphia Inquirer and online at www.philly.com . http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20130312_Philly_foot_doc_among_highest_paid_by_Big_Pharma.html When the original print story was run I had not had a chance to respond to the author, reporter Sam Woods. I give Mr. Woods credit for updating the online story in response to some of my comments, reproduced below, which I emailed to him this morning. I feel that the Pharma Industry has done an excellent job in disseminating important information that may otherwise not be available to those of us interested in saving limbs of patients with diabetes. This is done in an unbiased, government approved and monitored way, under strict federal guidance. My lectures are randomly, and independently audited for compliance with these guidelines and I have never been found to be deficient. Here is my response to Mr
Read the full article →
May 22, 2012
As promised, I would post a link to the newly revised, updated IDSA DFI Guidelines as soon as they were available. Well, I am honored, proud and excited to be able to let my readership know that after about 6 years in writing, multiple levels of peer review and well over 60 individual review comments, that the newly revised guidelines have been posted by IDSA on their website. Here is the link: http://www.idsociety.org/uploadedFiles/IDSA/Guidelines-Patient_Care/PDF_Library/2012%20Diabetic%20Foot%20Infections%20Guideline.pdf Those of you familiar with the 2004 document will immediately notice the changes. All IDSA Guidelines are now standardized to a “question, recommendation, evidence summary” format. Each committee is assigned to determine which are the most critical questions that need to be answered. In this case, we came up with 10 questions that cover everything from diagnosis to antibiotics, to osteomyelitis and wound care. There are 44 evidenced based recommendations that guide the clinician in the answers to those 10 questions. The evidence is then summarized and graded by the British Medical Journal “GRADE” system. This common sense approach matches the strength of the recommendation with the level of the evidence. This is given in plain English. For example “Strong, Low” means that there is a strong recommendation but a relatively low level of evidence on which the decision has been based. I hope that you all find the new Guidelines helpful in your management of these patients. I look forward to your comments
Read the full article →