Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35320298›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Decreased accuracy of erythrocyte sedimentation rate in diagnosing osteomyelitis in diabetic foot infection patients with severe renal impairment: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Xin Chen, Yiting Shen, Yuying Wang, Yang Li, Shuyu Guo, Yue Liang, Xuanyu Wang, Siyuan Zhou, Xiaojie Hu, Kaiwen Ma and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xin ChenDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7539-257X
Yiting ShenDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuying WangDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yang LiLonghua Medical College, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Shuyu GuoDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yue LiangDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xuanyu WangDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Siyuan ZhouDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiaojie HuDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Kaiwen MaDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Rui TianDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wenting FeiDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuqin ShengDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hengjie CaoDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Huafa QueDepartment of Surgery of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0624-6939
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) could reduce the risk of amputation and death in patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI). Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is considered the most useful serum inflammatory marker for the diagnosis of DFO. However, whether severe renal impairment (SRI) affects its diagnostic accuracy has not been reported previously.

objectiveTo investigate the accuracy of ESR in diagnosing DFO in DFI patients with and without SRI.

methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study. From the inpatient electronic medical record system, the investigators extracted demographic information, diagnostic information, and laboratory test results of patients with DFI who had been hospitalized in Longhua Hospital from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2021. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the interaction between ESR and SRI with adjustment for potential confounders. The area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and VassarStats.

resultsA total of 364 DFI patients were included in the analysis. The logistic regression analysis results showed that elevated ESR increased the probability of diagnosing DFO (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-3.28; adjusted P < 0.001); SRI was not associated with the diagnosis of DFO (adjusted OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 0.40-25.32; adjusted P = 0.271), but it had an obstructive effect on the diagnosis of DFO by ESR (adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23-0.99; adjusted P = 0.048). ROC analysis in DFI patients without SRI revealed that the AUC of ESR to diagnose DFO was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.81), with the cutoff value of 45 mm/h (sensitivity, 67.8%; specificity, 78.0%; prevalence, 44.7%; PPV, 71.3%; NPV, 75.0%; LR+, 3.08; LR-, 0.41). In contrast, in patients with SRI, the AUC of ESR to diagnose DFO was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.75), with the cutoff value of 42 mm/h (sensitivity, 95.0%; specificity, 29.2%; prevalence, 45.5%; PPV, 52.8%; NPV, 87.5%; LR+, 1.34; LR-, 0.17).

conclusionsThe accuracy of ESR in diagnosing DFO in DFI patients with SRI is reduced, and it may not have clinical diagnostic value in these patients.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesDiabetes MellitusDiabetic FootOsteomyelitisPolyneuropathiesRenal InsufficiencySkin DiseasesBiomarkersBlood SedimentationC-Reactive ProteinCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID35320298
PMCPMC8942204
OpenAlexW4220927702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.