ArticleCureus2026
Reliability and Validation of Three Scoring Systems in the Assessment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Diabetic foot ulcers represent a major cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with infection, delayed healing, and limb loss. Accurate risk stratification using standardized scoring systems is essential for predicting outcomes and guiding management decisions. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare three ulcer scoring systems (Diabetic Ulcer Severity Score (DUSS), Site, Ischemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection, Area, and Depth (SINBAD) scoring, and University of Texas classification) in predicting clinical outcomes, specifically secondary healing, requirement of split-thickness skin grafting (STSG), and lower limb amputation, among patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Materials and methods This prospective observational study included 107 patients aged ≥35 years with diabetic foot ulcers treated at a tertiary care centre over two years. Ulcers were assessed at baseline using the Diabetic Ulcer Severity Score, the University of Texas (UT) classification, and the SINBAD scoring system. Patients were followed until a definitive outcome. Clinical outcomes were categorized as secondary healing, requirement of split-thickness skin grafting, or lower limb amputation. Non-parametric statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The mean age of participants was 56.84 ± 12.32 years, with a male predominance (84, 78.3%). Most ulcers were located in the midfoot (45, 42.1%) and forefoot (44, 41.1%). STSG was required in 84 (78.5%) patients, amputation was performed in 18 (16.8%), and secondary healing occurred in five (4.7%). DUSS and UT classification did not show statistically significant differences across outcome groups. In contrast, SINBAD scores were significantly higher in the amputation group (median 5, IQR 4-6) compared to the STSG group (median 4, IQR 3-5) and secondary healing group (median 2, IQR 1-2) (H=8.02, p=0.018), demonstrating better discriminatory ability. Conclusion Among the evaluated scoring systems, SINBAD showed superior predictive performance for adverse clinical outcomes and may serve as a practical tool for risk stratification in diabetic foot ulcer management.
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.