Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32998870›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2020

Recurrence rates suggest delayed identification of plantar ulceration for patients in diabetic foot remission.

Brian J Petersen, Sicco A Bus, Gary M Rothenberg, David R Linders, Lawrence A Lavery, David G Armstrong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Minimally Invasive Floating Metatarsal Osteotomy for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Update on functional imaging in the evaluation of diabetic foot infection.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Brian J PetersenPodimetrics Inc, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA authors@podiography.org.ORCID 0000-0002-9552-5859
Sicco A BusDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands.
Gary M RothenbergDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
David R LindersPodimetrics Inc, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA.
Lawrence A LaveryDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
David G ArmstrongDepartment of Surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFoot ulcers are a common and costly complication of diabetes, and delays in treatment can result in impaired healing, infection, hospitalization, and lower extremity amputation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe aimed to determine whether patterns in plantar diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) recurrence coincided with typical intervals between routine preventive care appointments, which would suggest that delays exist between ulcer development and identification. We completed an analysis of existing data from two multicenter studies in 300 total participants. We analyzed unadjusted counts of DFU binned in weekly intervals and defined 'exam periods' as intervals from 2 to 4 weeks, from 6 to 8 weeks, within 1 week of 3 months and within 1 week of 6 months. We tested whether recurrence rates during exam periods were equivalent to rates outside exam periods. We estimated the delay between DFU development and DFU identification such that the rate of development would have been constant.

resultsDuring exam periods, a total of 43 DFUs were identified (43/86=50%) despite the fact that these periods represent only 23.5% of follow-up in aggregate. Accounting for censoring, the annualized incidence during exam periods was 0.68 DFU/year (CI 0.48 to 0.89) in contrast to 0.25 DFU/year (CI 0.18 to 0.32) outside exam periods (incidence ratio=2.8, CI 1.8 to 4.3). We estimated delays between DFU occurrence and identification to average 15.3 days (IQR 7.4-23.7 days).

conclusionsThese findings have potential implications for practice, particularly related to the value of telehealth and in-home monitoring of patients in diabetic foot remission. Additionally, there are implications for study design, which should consider the impact of interval censoring and attempt to control for confounders related to frequency and timing of exams.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootAmputation, SurgicalHumansIncidenceRecurrenceWound Healingdiabetic footdiabetic foot remissiondiabetic foot ulcerepidemiologyrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID32998870
PMCPMC7528350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.