Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36016824›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of clinical practice2022

Association between Lipid Profile and Apolipoproteins with Risk of Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Juan R Ulloque-Badaracco, Melany D Mosquera-Rojas, Enrique A Hernandez-Bustamante, Esteban A Alarcón-Braga, Ricardo R Ulloque-Badaracco, Ali Al-Kassab-Córdova, Percy Herrera-Añazco, Vicente A Benites-Zapata, Adrian V Hernandez

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Juan R Ulloque-BadaraccoEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1093-4937
Melany D Mosquera-RojasEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-7634
Enrique A Hernandez-BustamanteSociedad Científica de Estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1974-5200
Esteban A Alarcón-BragaEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3125-5949
Ricardo R Ulloque-BadaraccoUniversidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1298-5225
Ali Al-Kassab-CórdovaEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3718-5857
Percy Herrera-AñazcoUniversidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru.
Vicente A Benites-ZapataUnidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9158-1108
Adrian V HernandezUnidad de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-Análisis, Guías de Práctica Clínica y Evaluaciones de Tecnología Sanitaria, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru.
Peruvian University of Applied Sciences · PEUniversidad San Ignacio de Loyola · PEUniversidad Científica del Sur · PEUniversidad Privada San Juan Bautista · PEUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Biomarkers are necessary to stratify the risk of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the lipid profile and apolipoproteins with the risk of DFU. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science among adult patients. Cohort and case-control studies were included. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses, and the effects were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated publication bias through Egger's test and funnel plot. Results: A total of 12 cohort studies and 26 case-control studies were included, with 17076 patients. We found that the higher values of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) were associated with a higher risk of developing DFU (OR: 1.47, OR: 1.47, OR: 1.5, OR: 1.85, respectively). Otherwise, the lower values of HDL were associated with a higher risk of developing DFU (OR: 0.49). Publication bias was not found for associations between TC, HDL, LDL, or TG and the risk of DFU. Conclusions: The high values of LDL, TC, TG, and Lp(a) and low values of HDL are associated with a higher risk of developing DFU. Furthermore, we did not find a significant association for VLDL, ApoA1, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootAdultApolipoproteinsApolipoproteins BCase-Control StudiesCholesterol, HDLHumansTriglyceridesApolipoproteinsApolipoproteins BCholesterol, HDLTriglycerides

Identifiers

PMID36016824
PMCPMC9385316
OpenAlexW4290989954

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.