Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21249490›Full record

SynthesisDiabetologia2011

Risk stratification systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review.

M Monteiro-Soares, E J Boyko, J Ribeiro, I Ribeiro, M Dinis-Ribeiro

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetologia, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Diabetic Capital Punishment: Time for Amnesty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M Monteiro-SoaresServiço de Endocrinologia-Pé Diabético, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho EPE, Unidade 1, Rua Conceição Fernandes, 4434-502, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal. mat.monteirosoares@gmail.com
E J Boyko
J Ribeiro
I Ribeiro
M Dinis-Ribeiro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisSeveral risk stratification systems have been proposed for predicting development of diabetic foot ulcer. However, little has been published that assesses their similarities and disparities, diagnostic accuracy and evidence level. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review of the existing stratification systems.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE database for studies (published until April 2010) describing the creation and validation of risk stratification systems for prediction of diabetic foot ulcer development.

resultsWe included 13 studies describing or evaluating the following different risk degree stratification systems: University of Texas; International Working Group on Diabetic Foot; Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN); American Diabetes Association; and Boyko and colleagues. We confirmed that five variables were included in almost all the systems: diabetic neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, foot deformity, and previous foot ulcer and amputation. The number of variables included ranged from four to eight and the number of risk groups from two to six. Only four studies reported or allowed the calculation of diagnostic accuracy measures. The SIGN system showed some higher diagnostic accuracy values, particularly positive likelihood ratio, while predictive ability was confirmed through external validation only in the system of Boyko et al. CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationFoot ulcer risk stratification systems are a much needed tool for screening patients with diabetes. The core variables of various systems are very similar, but the number of included variables in each model and risk groups varied greatly. Overall, the quality of evidence for these systems is low, as little validation of their predictive ability has been done.

Indexed as

Diabetic FootFoot UlcerHumansSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.