ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2016
A targeted screening method for non-invasive vascular assessment of the lower limb.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toe-brachial index and toe systolic blood pressure for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The role of podiatry in the early identification and prevention of lower limb venous disease: an ethnographic study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPodiatrists routinely perform non-invasive lower limb vascular assessment, however frequently cite time as a major barrier in performing regular assessment. The aim of this study was to develop an evidence-based vascular assessment method to guide podiatrists' decision-making processes to aid in timely vascular assessment in at risk populations.
methodThe sample underwent brachial pressure measurement, ankle pressures, toe pressure and Doppler waveform with colour duplex ultrasound (CFDU) used as the reference standard. Both the targeted screening method and the American Heart Association (AHA) guideline for vascular screening were then applied to the data set and sensitivity and specificity of each method was calculated.
resultsOne hundred nineteen participants were included. Sensitivity of the targeted screening method (62%, 95% CI 47.17-75.35) was higher than the AHA method (49%, 95% CI 34.75-63.40), however, specificity of the AHA method (94%, 95% CI 85.62-98.37) was higher than the targeted screening method (85%, 95% CI 74.26-92.60). Diagnostic accuracy was similar with the AHA method yielding 74% diagnostic accuracy and the targeted screening method 73%.
conclusionThe targeted screening method and the broad international guideline demonstrated similar accuracy, however clinicians may save time using the targeted screening method. This study highlights the difficulties in obtaining accuracy in lower limb vascular assessment in general.
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.