ArticlePloS one2024
Preventive interventions for diabetic foot ulcer adopted in different healthcare settings: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Digital Intervention on Nurses' Knowledge About Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Quasi-Experimental Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic foot ulcers are challenging to heal, increase the risk of lower extremity amputation, and place a significant burden on patients, families, and healthcare systems. Prioritizing preventive interventions holds the promise of reducing patient suffering, lowering costs, and improving quality of life. This study describes a scoping review protocol that will be used to delineate the preventive interventions for diabetic foot ulcers employed in different healthcare settings.
methodsThe scoping review methodology was formulated in accordance with the PRISMA extension guidelines for scoping reviews and informed by the procedural insights provided by the JBI methodology group. Studies with participants diagnosed with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, aged 18 years or older, without an active ulcer at baseline, and studies of preventive interventions for foot ulcers in various healthcare settings will be screened. The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a research librarian using the PRESS checklist and no time or language limitations were applied. Data will be analyzed and summarized descriptively, including characteristics of studies, participants, and interventions. DISCUSSION: Understanding the strategies and gaps in diabetic foot ulcer prevention is critical. The literature can provide valuable insights for developing tailored interventions and strategies to effectively address these gaps, potentially accelerating progress toward improved outcomes in diabetic foot ulcer prevention. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FRZ97 [June 19, 2023].
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.