Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24791012›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes research2014

Does the diabetic foot have a significant impact on selected psychological or social characteristics of patients with diabetes mellitus?

Vladimíra Fejfarová, Alexandra Jirkovská, Eva Dragomirecká, Frances Game, Robert Bém, Michal Dubský, Veronika Wosková, Marta Křížová, Jelena Skibová, Stephanie Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A qualitative study to understand people's experiences of living with Charcot neuroarthropathy.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Diabetic Wound-Healing Science.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Is There a Role for Informal Caregivers in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers? A Narrative Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Vladimíra FejfarováDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Alexandra JirkovskáDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Eva DragomireckáDepartment of Social Work, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 116 42 Prague, Czech Republic.
Frances GameDiabetes Unit, Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby DU22 3NE, UK.
Robert BémDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Michal DubskýDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Veronika WoskováDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Marta KřížováDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Jelena SkibováDiabetes Center, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Vídeňská 1958, 140 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Stephanie WuCenter for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Chicago, IL 60064, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe aim of our case-control study was to compare selected psychological and social characteristics between diabetic patients with and without the DF (controls).

methods104 patients with and 48 without DF were included into our study. Both study groups were compared in terms of selected psychosocial characteristics.

resultsCompared to controls, patients with DF had a significantly worse quality of life in the area of health and standard of living as shown by lower physical health domain (12.7 ± 2.8 versus 14.7 ± 2.5; P < 0.001) and environment domain (14.1 ± 2.2 versus 15 ± 1.8; P < 0.01) that negatively correlated with diabetes duration (r = -0.061; P = 0.003). Patients with DF subjectively felt more depressed in contrast to controls (24.5 versus 7.3%; P < 0.05); however, the depressive tuning was objectively proven in higher percentage in both study groups (83.2 versus 89.6; NS). We observed a significantly lower level of achieved education (P < 0.01), more patients with disability pensions (P < 0.01), and low self-support (P < 0.001) in patients with the DF compared to controls. In the subgroup of patients with a previous major amputation and DF (n = 6), there were significantly worse outcomes as in the environment domain (P < 0.01), employment status, and stress readaptation (P < 0.01) in contrast to the main study groups.

conclusionsPatients with DF had a predominantly worse standard of living. In contrast to our expectations, patients with DF appeared to have good stress tolerability and mental health (with the exception of patients with previous major amputation) and did not reveal severe forms of depression or any associated consequences.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalCost of IllnessActivities of Daily LivingAgedAmputation, SurgicalCase-Control StudiesCzech RepublicDepressionDiabetes MellitusDiabetic FootFemaleHumansIncidenceMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24791012
PMCPMC3984852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.