ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2025
From Ulcer to Amputation: A Systematic Review of Prognostic Models for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Amputation.
Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- Review
- [Comparison of the predictive efficacy of the Wagner, SINBAD, and WIfI grading systems for short-term wound non-healing and amputation in patients with DFUs].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Host Susceptibility Phenotypes and Construction of an Inflammation-Vascular-Metabolic (IVM) Integrated Score for Hard-to-Heal Wounds After Low-Energy Foot Trauma in Older Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 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
- Prospective observational cohort of algorithm-guided reassessment in diabetic foot: real-world outcomes and prognostic associations.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2026Article
- Predictors of Unfavorable Outcomes in Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To systematically analyze and compare studies on risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcers progressing to amputation, facilitate clinical decision-making, and provide recommendations for improving modeling strategies in future research. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to January 29, 2025, to identify studies on risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcers progressing to amputation. After study screening and data extraction, we evaluated bias and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results: We included 18 papers comprising 15 development studies and 3 external validation studies. The development studies reported 17 models, while the validation studies externally validated 12 models. The area under the curve of all models ranged from 0.557 to 0.957. The most commonly used predictors were peripheral arterial disease, glycated hemoglobin, infection, Wagner classification, and ulcer depth. All included studies had low concerns regarding applicability but exhibited high risk of bias, primarily due to insufficient events per variable, missing data, inadequate consideration of data complexity, lack of model performance assessment, and absence of internal validation. Conclusion: Risk prediction model research for diabetic foot ulcer progression to amputation remains in its early stages. Future efforts should prioritize prospectively developing and externally validating models with robust performance and low bias, accompanied by rigorous internal validation and transparent reporting. (Funding: Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (2022CFB145) and Research Fund of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (2023D36)).
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.