Foot and ankle outcomes after blast and gunshot injuries: a systematic review
Year: 2026
Type: study-registration
Abstract: Review title: Foot and ankle outcomes after blast and gunshot injuries: a systematic review Type and method of review: Systematic review, with meta-analysis where appropriate Stage of review at time of this submission: Review ongoing — the protocol has been finalised and the peer-reviewed search prepared; formal screening not yet started. Review question: In Patients with foot and ankle injuries from blast or gunshot trauma, what is the effect of Surgical or reconstructive management (limb salvage or amputation) compared with Alternative management, where reported on Functional outcomes, complications, infection, amputation rate and return to duty or work? Searches: The following sources will be searched: Europe PMC (PubMed, MEDLINE & preprints), PubMed / MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Google Scholar. Additional records may be imported from other databases. No date or language restrictions are applied unless otherwise stated. The search strategy underwent peer review (PRESS) before execution. Condition or domain being studied: Patients with foot and ankle injuries from blast or gunshot trauma Participants / population: Patients with foot and ankle injuries from blast or gunshot trauma Intervention(s), exposure(s): Surgical or reconstructive management (limb salvage or amputation) Comparator(s) / control: Alternative management, where reported Types of study to be included: Inclusion criteria: Military or civilian patients with blast or gunshot injuries of the foot or ankle; Reports functional or clinical outcomes after treatment; Cohort studies, case series of 10 or more patients or trials; Full-text article published in English. Exclusion criteria: Injuries above the ankle without separately reported foot or ankle data; Case series with fewer than 10 patients; Reviews, editorials, letters, case reports or conference abstracts; Overlapping samples (the largest or most recent report is kept) Main outcome(s): Functional outcomes, complications, infection, amputation rate and return to duty or work Data extraction (selection and coding): Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts, blinded to each other’s decisions, and extract data in duplicate using a standardised, piloted form. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias (quality) assessment: The risk of bias of each included study will be assessed independently by two reviewers using a study-design-appropriate tool. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Risk of bias in the review itself will be appraised with ROBIS. Strategy for data synthesis: Results will be synthesised narratively. Where studies are sufficiently homogeneous, effect estimates will be pooled in a meta-analysis using a fixed- or random-effects model as indicated by heterogeneity (I²). The certainty of the evidence will be rated using GRADE.
Source: Open Science Framework
Author: Karim Haffar
Language: English
Subfield: Emergency Medicine
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7225106462