ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Clinical perspectives on sampling and processing approaches for the management of infection in diabetic foot ulceration: A qualitative study.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Swabs versus tissue samples for infected diabetic foot ulcers: the CODIFI2 RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Concordance of molecular microbiology and conventional culture techniques for infected diabetic foot ulcer management.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Trial
- In vitro activity of Houttuynia cordata against bacteria isolated from diabetic foot.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Clinical perspectives on sampling and processing approaches for the management of infection in diabetic foot ulceration: A qualitative study.International wound journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) often become infected and are treated with antimicrobials, with samples collected to inform care. Swab samples are easier than tissue sampling but report fewer organisms. Compared with culture and sensitivity (C&S) methods, molecular microbiology identifies more organisms. Clinician perspectives on sampling and processing are unknown. We explored clinician perspectives on DFU sampling-tissue samples/wound swabs-and on processing techniques, culture and sensitivity or molecular techniques. The latter provides information on organisms which have not survived transport to the laboratory for culture. We solicited feedback on molecular microbiology reports. Qualitative study using semi-structured interview, with analysis using a Framework approach. CODIFI2 clinicians from UK DFU clinics. Seven consultants agreed to take part. They reported, overall, a preference for tissue samples over swabbing. Clinicians were not confident replacing C&S with molecular microbiology as the approach to reporting was unfamiliar. The study was small and did not recruit any podiatrists or nurses, who may have discipline-specific attitudes or perspectives on DFU care. Both sampling approaches appear to be used by clinicians. Molecular microbiology reports would not be, at present, suitable for replacement of traditional culture and sensitivity.
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.