ArticleSAGE open nursing
The Validity and Efficacy of a Preventative Intervention Model for Reducing Ulcer Recurrence in Diabetic Patients in Indonesia.
Article in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: It is important to reduce foot problems by preventing the recurrence of ulcers in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. In Indonesia, interventions for the prevention of ulcer recurrence remain scarce. Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the validity and efficacy of a proposed intervention model for preventing the recurrence of ulcers in DM patients. Method: Sixty-four DM patients were selected to participate in this quasi-experimental study and divided into two groups: intervention ( Results: Of the 32 participants in the intervention group, 18 (56.20%) were male, 25 (78.10%) were non-smokers, 23 (71.90%) had neuropathy, 14 (43.80%) had foot deformities, four (12.50%) had recurring ulcers, and 20 (62.50%) had a previous ulcer < 12 months ago. Of the 32 participants in the control group, 17 (53.10%) were male, 26 (81.25%) were non-smokers, 17 (46.90%) had neuropathy, 19 (69.40%) had foot deformities, 12 (37.50%) had recurring ulcers, and 24 (75.00%) had a previous ulcer < 12 months ago. The mean (SD) age [62 (11.28) and 59 (11.11) years], ankle-brachial index [1.19 (0.24) and 1.11 (0.17)], HbA1C [9.18 (2.14%) and 8.91 (2.75%)], and DM duration [10.22 (6.71) and 10.13 (7.54)] of the intervention and control groups did not differ significantly. The content validity of the proposed intervention model was strong (I-CVI > 0.78). When the proposed screening tool for predicting the risk of ulcer recurrence in DM patients (NASFoHSkin) was used in the intervention group, its predictive validity, sensitivity, and specificity were 4, 100%, and 80%, respectively, while in the control group it was 4, 83%, and 80%, respectively. Conclusion: Inspection/examination, foot care, and blood glucose control can decrease ulcer recurrence in DM 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.