ReviewIranian journal of public health2025
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Recurrence Risk Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2025. 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.
- The Impact of Adjunctive Acupressure on Postoperative Infection and Hospital Stay in Wagner Grade 2-3 Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Propensity Score-Stratified Cohort Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Association between HbA1c/HDL-C ratio and diabetic foot ulcer: a cross-sectional study based on the Han population in Northwest China.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Beyond clinical closure: functional skin barrier recovery to prevent diabetic foot ulcer recurrence: a narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Association of Glycated Hemoglobin Levels with Amputation Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Southern Iran (2023-2024) : Effect of HbA1c on Diabetic Foot Ulcer Prognosis.Galen medical journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We used the Predictive Model Bias Risk Assessment tool (PROBAST) tool to systematically evaluate the existing models worldwide, in order to provide a reference for clinical staff to select and optimize DFU recurrence risk prediction models. Methods: Literature on DFU recurrence risk prediction model construction published in CNKI, China Biomedical Literature Database, Vipu China Knowledge, China Biomedical Literature Database, Vipu Chinese Journal Service Platform, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and other databases were systematically searched. The search period was until January 29, 2024, encompassing all relevant studies published up to that date. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two researchers, and the PROBAST was used to evaluate the bias risk and applicability of the included literature. Results: Finally, 9 literatures were included, 13 prediction models were established, and the area under the AUC or C-index ranged from 0.660 to 0.943. Nine models were validated internally and one model was validated externally. All the models constructed in the included literature are of high-risk bias, and the applicability of the models is reasonable. Common predictors in the prediction model were Wagner scale, glycosylated hemoglobin, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion: Although most of the existing DFU risk prediction models have good prediction performance, they all have high risk of bias. It is suggested that researchers should update the existing models in the future, and future modeling studies should follow the reporting norms, so as to develop a scientific, effective and convenient risk prediction model that is more conducive to clinical practice.
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.