ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence and risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers in Nepal.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) among Nepalese diabetic population and assess geographical variations and to identify the associated risk factors. Methods: We included hospital- and community-based studies reporting DFU prevalence among people with diabetes in Nepal, published up to 1 August 2025. Case reports, case series, letters, conference abstracts, and studies lacking sufficient data or full texts were excluded. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Risk of bias was assessed, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI) in R software. Subgroup analyses by province and qualitative assessments of risk factors were performed. Results: Nine studies comprising 18 812 participants with diabetes were included, of whom 722 had DFUs. The pooled prevalence of DFUs was 6.17% (95% CI: 2.56-14.15). Subgroup analysis showed prevalence ranging from 2.9% in Sudurpaschim to 16.8% in Lumbini, indicating geographical variation across Nepal. Smoking ( Discussion: Considerable heterogeneity was noted due to variations in study design, population, and diagnostic criteria. The findings revealed a substantial burden of DFUs in Nepal, highlighting the need for improved foot-care practices, regular screening, and patient education.
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.