ArticleDigital health
Implementation of a novel mHealth application for the management of people with diabetes and recently healed foot ulceration: A feasibility study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Health Technologies for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence, Access Inequities, and Public Health Integration.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- "New technologies applied in self-care to patients with diabetic foot ulcers: a scoping review".Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) cause significant morbidity and mortality. Faster referral to specialist clinics is associated with a reduced risk of severe DFUs. The INTELLIN Methods: To determine the acceptability, suitability, and usability of the INTELLIN Results: 197 patients were assessed for eligibility and 15 entered the full analysis set (FAS). Through Week 52, 8/15 patients experienced recurrence, with a mean SINBAD score of 2.1 and mean duration of 2.6 days. Mean time to recurrence was 273.0 days (95% confidence interval 74.0, 484.0). No patients self-referred. Initial qualitative data showed high platform usability. The INTELLIN Conclusions: These results suggest that the INTELLIN
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.