ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2024
Prediction models for amputation after diabetic foot: systematic review and critical appraisal.
Review in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diabetic Foot Ulcer Classification Models Using Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Techniques: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Risk factors for re-amputation and major amputation following diabetic foot amputation: a clinical and socioeconomic perspective.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical Severity and Systemic Inflammatory Indices as Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality After Limb Amputation a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- A randomized controlled trial of Shengji ointment combined with bromelain in promoting healing of tendon-exposed diabetic foot wounds: integrated 16S rDNA sequencing and metabolomics analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies have developed or validated prediction models aimed at estimating the likelihood of amputation in diabetic foot (DF) patients. However, the quality and applicability of these models in clinical practice and future research remain uncertain. This study conducts a systematic review and assessment of the risk of bias and applicability of amputation prediction models among individuals with DF.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Weipu (VIP) from their inception to December 24, 2023. Two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted data using the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modeling studies. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was employed to evaluate both the risk of bias and applicability.
resultsA total of 20 studies were included in this analysis, comprising 17 development studies and three validation studies, encompassing 20 prediction models and 11 classification systems. The incidence of amputation in patients with DF ranged from 5.9 to 58.5%. Machine learning-based methods were employed in more than half of the studies. The reported area under the curve (AUC) varied from 0.560 to 0.939. Independent predictors consistently identified by multivariate models included age, gender, HbA1c, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes duration, and Wagner's Classification. All studies were found to exhibit a high risk of bias, primarily attributed to inadequate handling of outcome events and missing data, lack of model performance assessment, and overfitting.
conclusionsThe assessment using PROBAST revealed a notable risk of bias in the existing prediction models for amputation in patients with DF. It is imperative for future studies to concentrate on enhancing the robustness of current prediction models or constructing new models with stringent methodologies.
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.