ArticleDiabetologia2026
Prospective comparison of WBC SPECT/CT and conventional MRI for diagnosing osteomyelitis and monitoring treatment response in diabetic foot infections.
Article in Diabetologia, 2026. 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.
- Nuclear medicine imaging to guide antibiotic therapy: an expert review.The British journal of radiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisOsteomyelitis is a common complication of diabetic foot ulcers and a leading cause of lower limb amputations globally. Accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is essential for effective infection management and improving prognosis. This study aimed to compare the performance of white blood cell (WBC)-single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) and conventional MRI in the initial diagnosis of DFO and in detecting residual infection during treatment monitoring, using bone biopsy as the reference standard.
methodsIn this prospective clinical study, 47 patients with foot wounds suspicious for DFO underwent 99mTc-WBC SPECT/CT and MRI, followed by bone biopsy. After receiving a standard course of antibiotics, 20 patients returned for post-treatment imaging and a repeat biopsy. All imaging studies and histopathology were blindly interpreted as positive or negative for DFO. Biopsies were considered positive if either bone cultures or histopathology indicated osteomyelitis. Imaging results were evaluated against biopsy to determine the diagnostic performance of each method before and after treatment.
resultsFor initial DFO diagnosis, WBC SPECT/CT demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 85%, 79%, 90% and 69%, respectively, while MRI yielded corresponding values of 73%, 43%, 75% and 40%. Following antibiotic therapy, WBC SPECT/CT and MRI shared identical sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of 75%, 75%, 43% and 92%. CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationWBC SPECT/CT exhibits greater sensitivity and specificity than MRI at initial diagnosis. However, after treatment, WBC SPECT/CT and MRI perform equivalently in determining therapeutic response. Our results indicate WBC SPECT/CT is a viable, if not superior, method for primary non-invasive assessment of suspected DFO. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use paired bone biopsy to validate imaging in diabetic foot infections both before and after antibiotic intervention.
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.