ArticleThe Australasian medical journal2015
Diabetic foot complications in a secondary foot hospital: A clinical audit.
Article in The Australasian medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies conducted in Australian hospital settings suggest high variability in assessments, investigations, and management of diabetic foot infections and poor adherence to widely accessible evidence-based protocols and guidelines. Diabetic foot complications require a multidisciplinary approach and often involve both medical and surgical teams during inpatient care.
aimsThe aim of this clinical audit was to better understand the scope of diabetes-related foot complications, evaluate whether current assessment and management strategies are in line with best practice guidelines, and to formulate future models of care.
methodsA retrospective review of patients was carried out between 12 July 2012 and 11 July 2013. Recorded assessments of inpatient care, including risk factors, surgery, length of stay, interdepartmental referrals, and antibiotic administration were reviewed.
resultsThere were 24 admissions in 12 months (total patients n=19). Fifty-eight per cent of patients were admitted to the medical ward. More than one-quarter had evidence of osteomyelitis. While one patient required intensive care unit (ICU) management, there was no inpatient mortality. Two patients experienced significant delay to undergo initial surgical intervention presumably because of failed medical treatment. Clinical data was recorded poorly, especially regarding neuropathy, HbA1c, and clinical examination findings. Twelve per cent of patients did not undergo any follow-up. The average length of stay was 12 days. One-half of the cohort was not evaluated by the endocrinology department.
conclusionThis audit highlights the need for improved care for patients with diabetic foot complications and better coordination among the multidisciplinary teams involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.