SynthesisJournal of diabetes science and technology2020
Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulceration: The Value of Using Microclimate Sensor Arrays.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wearable Technologies for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Monitoring and Risk Prediction: Systematic Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- Advances in diabetic wound healing: from pathophysiology to emerging therapies.Acta diabetologica · 2026Review
- Relationship between Plantar Pressure and Sensory Disturbance in Patients with Hansen's Disease-Preliminary Research and Review of the Literature.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately predicting the risk of diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) could dramatically reduce the enormous burden of chronic wound management and amputation. Yet, the current prognostic models are unable to precisely predict DFU events. Typically, efforts have focused on individual factors like temperature, pressure, or shear rather than the overall foot microclimate.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed reports with no restrictions on start date covering the literature published until February 20, 2019 using relevant keywords, including temperature, pressure, shear, and relative humidity. We review the use of these variables as predictors of DFU, highlighting gaps in our current understanding and suggesting which specific features should be combined to develop a real-time microclimate prognostic model.
resultsThe current prognostic models rely either solely on contralateral temperature, pressure, or shear measurement; these parameters, however, rarely reach 50% specificity in relation to DFU. There is also considerable variation in methodological investigation, anatomical sensor configuration, and resting time prior to temperature measurements (5-20 minutes). Few studies have considered relative humidity and mean skin resistance.
conclusionVery limited evidence supports the use of single clinical parameters in predicting the risk of DFU. We suggest that the microclimate as a whole should be considered to predict DFU more effectively and suggest nine specific features which appear to be implicated for further investigation. Technology supports real-time in-shoe data collection and wireless transmission, providing a potentially rich source of data to better predict the risk of DFU.
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.