ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2026
Can Foot Dermatophyte Infections Signal Future Diabetes Risk? Findings from a Register-based Study.
Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dermatophyte infections are common in general practice and occur more often in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but whether they signal undiagnosed T2D remains unclear. We conducted a register-based cohort study including positive PCR tests for dermatophyte infection from the feet or nails, matched 1:3 to individuals from the same geographic area in Denmark. Those with known diabetes, type 1 diabetes or aged under 20 were excluded. Incidence rates (IRs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for new-onset T2D were estimated using Poisson regression. The final cohort comprised 78,140 individuals, with a median age of 51 years, and 60.8% were male. The IR for T2D was 9.23 per 100 person-years in the exposed group and 9.00 in the unexposed group, with an adjusted IRR of 1.00 (0.91-1.11, p=0.94), indicating no significant association. In a sensitivity analysis excluding unexposed individuals with prior topical antifungal treatment, the IRR increased to 1.15 (1.08-1.23, p=0.001). While the primary analysis showed no significant association, the sensitivity analysis suggested a modest increased risk when exposure misclassification was reduced, supporting dermatophyte infection as a possible early signal of undiagnosed T2D in selected populations.
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.