ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Re-infection after treatment for moderate and severe diabetic foot infections.
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.
- Bacteriophage therapy for antimicrobial-resistant, biofilm‑associated diabetic foot infection: delivery routes, phage antibiotic synergy, and practical wound‑care integration.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Prospective comparison of WBC SPECT/CT and conventional MRI for diagnosing osteomyelitis and monitoring treatment response in diabetic foot infections.Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Staged management of infected diabetic foot ulcers: a 300-patient cohort study on prognostic grading, pathogen dynamics, and individualized risk prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Re-infection after treatment for moderate and severe diabetic foot infections.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate risk factors for re-infection and compare the outcomes in people with diabetic foot infections. A retrospective chart review was conducted, and 294 hospitalised patients with moderate to severe diabetic foot infections (DFIs) were analysed for this study. The diagnosis and classification of the severity of infection was based on the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) infection guidelines. Skin and soft tissue infections were diagnosed based on clinical observations as per IWGDF classification in addition to ruling out any suspected osteomyelitis (OM) through negative bone culture, MRI or WBC SPECT CT. OM was confirmed by bone culture or histopathology. Clinical outcomes were based on a 12-month follow-up period. All dichotomous outcomes were compared using χ
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.