ArticleCureus2025
Improving Diabetic Foot Care Through a Multidisciplinary Clinic: Experience From Pilgrim Hospital, UK.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
Background Diabetic foot ulcers are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Although multidisciplinary team (MDT) models are increasingly recognised as best practice, they remain under-implemented across the United Kingdom. This study evaluated the clinical impact of introducing a diabetic foot MDT service at a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. Methodology This retrospective, cohort study compared clinical outcomes in two patient groups, namely, those managed before (Cycle 1; January to June 2016, n = 72 patients, 85 lesions) and after (Cycle 2; January to June 2019, n = 90 patients, 111 lesions) the implementation of the MDT. Primary outcomes included major amputation and mortality, while secondary outcomes included healing rate. Further data were collected on demographics, interventions, service outcomes, and Charcot foot. Results Following MDT implementation, major amputations decreased from 11% to 6% (p = 0.196), three-year mortality reduced from 39% to 29% (p = 0.180), and healing rate improved from 64% to 74% (p = 0.289), all clinically meaningful although not statistically significant. Ulcer healing time improved significantly from 300 to 244 days (p = 0.0375), and readmission rates due to recurrent or new lesions dropped from 47% to 22% (p = 0.0008). All post-MDT patients received vascular review, with an increase in revascularisation and orthopaedic surgeries. Charcot foot cases demonstrated stability post-treatment, with no reactivations over three years. Conclusions Implementation of a diabetic foot MDT significantly improved healing time and reduced readmissions, with clinically meaningful reductions in amputation and mortality. These findings support the adoption of integrated MDT models in district general hospitals to optimise diabetic foot outcomes in the United Kingdom.
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.