ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
A male
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetic foot ulcers and associated factors among adults in Ethiopia.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- A cross-sectional clinical analysis on diabetic foot ulcer and associated risk management.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review on diabetic foot ulcer addressing vascular insufficiency, impaired immune response, and delayed wound healing mechanisms.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 Testing of Golden Rice Cookies With Piper Crocatum Active Extract for Preventing Foot Ulcers in Patients With Diabetes: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the main complications of diabetes mellitus associated with major morbidity and mortality. DFU is the major cause of infection and lower extremity amputations in diabetic patients. Despite this, there was a scanty finding on associated factors of foot ulcer among diabetes mellitus. Methods: Facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among diabetes mellitus patients at BGH from August 1, 2021 - 30, 2021. The validated tool of the Nottingham Assessment of Functional Footcare (NAFF) was used to assess the diabetic foot self-care practice. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the associations between the dependent variables and independent variables. Data were analyzed using a statistical package for social science (SPSS version 23). Results: A total of 162 respondents with a response rate of 100% have participated in the study. Of the respondents, 88 (54.3%) were females and the mean and SD of the age were 35.8 and 12.70. The prevalence of diabetic foot ulcers in our study area was 24(14.81%). The results of the multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that being a male (AOR = 2.143; 95% CI: 0.691-6.65), poor diabetic foot care practice (AOR = 3.761; 95CI: 1.188-11.90), and having a co-morbidity (AOR = 2.507; 95CI: 3.270-5.95)were more likely to experience a diabetic foot ulcer than their counterparts. Conclusion: The prevalence of diabetic foot ulcers among diabetic patients in BGH was found to be high. The presence of comorbidity, being a male, and foot care practice were factors that predict the occurrences of diabetic foot ulcers. Therefore, the ongoing medical education on the foot care practices should be given to diabetes mellitus patients.
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.