ArticleInternational wound journal2017
Prescribing antibiotics in diabetic foot infection: what is the role of initial microscopy and culture of tissue samples?
Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Performance of Gram-Staining in Tailoring the Empirical Antibiotic Choice in Operated Diabetic Foot Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Stewardship in the Management of Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcer Disease in Less Developed Countries.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2024Review
- A retrospective analysis of the microbiology of diabetic foot infections at a Scottish tertiary hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Renal function in patients with diabetic foot infection; does antibiotherapy affect it?Journal of renal injury prevention · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of microscopy, Gram stain and the culture of tissue samples in the antibiotic treatment of patients with diabetic foot infection. A retrospective review of patients with a diabetic foot infection was undertaken. Data analysed included the severity of infection, antibiotic prescribing patterns, microscopy and culture results. A total of 71 patients were included, from whom 114 tissue samples were collected. Gram stain results were in agreement with final culture results in 45·8% (n = 54) of samples. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the Gram stains were low (74·5% and 69·8%, respectively), although the specificity for Gram-negative rods was high (98·5%). The presence or absence of 'pus cells' on microscopy was a poor predictor of culture results. Empirical prescribing of antibiotics was in accordance with local policy in 31·1% of patients, improving to 86·8 % following culture results. Microscopy, a skilled laboratory procedure, was generally a poor predictor of tissue culture results. However, the presence of Gram-negative rods was suggestive of isolation in the culture of such organisms and could allow the early broadening of antibiotic treatment. Despite initial poor compliance of empirical antibiotic treatment regimens, prescribing was adjusted in light of culture results, suggesting these were important for clinicians.
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.