SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2025
To Assess the Variation in the Definitions Used to Describe the Stages of Acute Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy (Diagnosis, Remission and Relapse): A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- To Assess the Variation in the Definitions Used to Describe the Stages of Acute Charcot Neuro-Osteoarthropathy (Diagnosis, Remission and Relapse): A Systematic Review.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Pooled it
- Burning Issues/Hot Topics: The Charcot Foot.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIn 2023 the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) published definitions for the diagnosis, remission and relapse of active Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy (CN). Until 2023 authors had used varied definitions to identify the stages of CN making comparisons difficult. The aim of the current study was to illustrate variation in definitions used before 2023 and to encourage consistent terminology in future publications.
methodsSearches were conducted in OVID, Pubmed and CINAHL. Studies were included if they had a minimum of 10 participants and reported the outcomes of CN in conservative or pharmacological treatments in people with diabetes and CN. Included study designs were randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, non-randomised controlled trials, case-controls and case series. We excluded studies of surgical treatment of CN. Data collected included location of the study, study design and population. Definitions of each stage were compared to the IWGDF definitions through a scoring system.
resultsWe screened 1758 titles, 143 abstracts and 63 full texts. We included 37 studies from 20 different countries. Scores comparing the studies' definitions to the published IWGDF guidelines for definitions ranged from a similarity of 17%-100%. Six studies scored 100% with 31 studies missing aspects of the IWGDF definitions.
conclusionAuthors should use standardised definitions of the stages of CN to allow comparisons between studies to be accurately made. More work is needed to assess the variation in terminology within studies with CN treated surgically.
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.