Responses

Download PDFPDF

Protocol
Epidemiology of major lower limb amputation using routinely collected electronic health data in the UK: a systematic review protocol
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Epidemiology of lower limb extremity amputations – Do we already have the answer to why there is significant variation in the reporting of incidence, prevalence and number?

    Dear Editor,

    It is interesting to read that Meffen A, et al. (2020) will study the incidence, prevalence and number of major-lower limb amputations in the UK, amongst their objectives. They plan to investigate the reasons for significant variation in the reporting of epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation (LEA). Prevalence of LEA has been evaluated, on numerous occasions in many epidemiological studies (1-14).

    There has been a recent study that has followed similar methods and objectives to Meffen A, et al. (2020), to determine the methodological differences that create the variation of prevalence of LEAs (1). There are also studies that have used robust methodology to report on incidence, prevalence and number of LEAs, which include age standardised, gender, ethnic minority, and regional specific data analysis (6, 13, 14).

    The same systematic searches of peer reviewed journals using PRISMA guidelines, have already been carried out from a comprehensive range of databases: PubMed, Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ExperptaMedica Database (EMBASE), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Online (MEDLINE), Cochrane database, NHS Digital, Diabetes UK and Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP), of all LEA studies performed in England, over a 30 year period (1988- 2018) (1).

    The variation in prevalence of major LEAs, reported by Davies M, Burdett L, Bowling F, et al. (2019) range from 0.7...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.