ArticleThe review of diabetic studies : RDS
A Critical Evaluation of Existing Diabetic Foot Screening Guidelines.
Article in The review of diabetic studies : RDS. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Prevention, assessment, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot based on clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Evidence for current recommendations concerning the management of foot health for people with chronic long-term conditions: a systematic review.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2017Pooled it
- Diabetic Foot Screening Guidelines and the Role of Artificial Intelligence: Time to Turn the Tide!The international journal of lower extremity wounds · 2026Review
- Evaluating and mapping the evidence that screening for diabetic foot disease meets the criteria for population-wide screening: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- What are the current diabetic foot assessment methods in private podiatry practices in Flanders, Belgium: an exploratory mixed method study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Article
- Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in resource-limited settings.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2023Review
- Improving Physical, Physiological, and Psychological Health Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers - State of the Art.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence Methodologies Applied to Technologies for Screening, Diagnosis and Care of the Diabetic Foot: A Narrative Review.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Individualised screening of diabetic foot: creation of a prediction model based on penalised regression and assessment of theoretical efficacy.Diabetologia · 2022Article
- The Impact of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) on Lower Limb Kinematics in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The review of diabetic studies : RDS · 2021Article
- Diabetic Polyneuropathy - Advances in Diagnosis and Intervention Strategies.European endocrinology · 2020Review
- Combining diabetic foot and retinopathy screening: A step in the right direction? - a feasibility study.SAGE open medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Duration of Type 2 Diabetes is a Predictor of Elevated Plantar Foot Pressure.The review of diabetic studies : RDS · 2018Article
- UK podiatrists' experiences of podiatry services for people living with arthritis: a qualitative investigation.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2018Article
- Atypical Microbial Isolates from Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Case Series from Greece.The review of diabetic studies : RDS · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate critically the current guidelines for foot screening in patients with diabetes, and to examine their relevance in terms of advancement in clinical practice, improvement in technology, and change in socio-cultural structure.
methodsA structured literature search was conducted in Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google between January 2011 and January 2015 using the keywords '(Diabetes) AND (Foot Screening) AND (Guidelines)'.
resultsTen complete diabetes foot screening guidelines were identified and selected for analysis. Six of them included the full-process guidelines recommended by the International Diabetes Federation. Evaluation of the existing diabetes foot screening guidelines showed substantial variability in terms of different evidence-based methods and grading systems to achieve targets, making it difficult to compare the guidelines. In some of the guidelines, it is unclear how the authors have derived the recommendations, i.e. on which study results they are based, making it difficult for the users to understand them.
conclusionsLimitations of currently available guidelines and lack of evidence on which the guidelines are based are responsible for the current gaps between guidelines, standard clinical practice, and development of complications. For the development of standard recommendations and everyday clinical practice, it will be necessary to pay more attention to both the limitations of guidelines and the underlying evidence.
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.