SynthesisJournal of diabetes research2026
Measurement Properties of Instruments Used to Assess Diabetic Foot: An Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measurement Properties of Instruments Used to Assess Diabetic Foot: An Umbrella Review.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDiabetic foot is a severe, chronic complication that contributes substantially to morbidity and mortality. Numerous instruments have been developed to support systematic foot evaluation; however, their measurement properties have not been sufficiently evaluated. This umbrella review is aimed to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on diabetic foot assessment tools, evaluate their methodological quality, and compare the psychometric properties and clinical applicability of the identified tools. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases identified reviews published between 2010 and 2025. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) tools.
resultsEleven systematic reviews encompassing 24 instruments were analyzed. The ROBIS appraisal rated most reviews (73%) as having a high risk of bias. The instruments were grouped into four categories with frequent overlaps: screening, risk stratification, wound classification, and infection/healing monitoring. Evidence of reliability and construct validity was common, whereas measurement errors, responsiveness, and cross-cultural validation were rarely assessed. Heterogeneity and methodological weaknesses limit robust conclusions.
conclusionsThis umbrella review highlights the substantial gaps in the psychometric evaluation of assessment tools for diabetic foot, compounded by methodological flaws in supporting systematic reviews. Clinicians should exercise caution in tool selection, and future research should prioritize rigorous validation studies and high-quality systematic reviews to establish standardized evidence-based instruments.
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.