Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42458776›Full record

ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society

Longitudinal Healing and Amputation Trajectories in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Predictive Power of Wound Area and Duration and Sample-Size Implications From the Diabetic Foot Consortium.

Charlotte Xu, Brian M Schmidt, Amy Krambrink, Junyoung Park, Peter X K Song, Teresa L Z Jones, Crystal M Holmes, Kellen Chen, Wen Ye, Giselle Kolenic and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Charlotte XuSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Brian M SchmidtDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Amy KrambrinkSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Junyoung ParkSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2305-4986
Peter X K SongSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-7182
Teresa L Z JonesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Crystal M HolmesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Kellen ChenUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Wen YeSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Giselle KolenicSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sashwati RoyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Chandan K SenUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rodica Pop-BusuiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Diabetes, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Cathie SpinoSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Irina GaynanovaSchool of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4116-0268

Funding

University of Michigan Data Coordinating Center for the Diabetic Foot ConsortiumU24DK122927 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Catherine A Spino · 2019 to 2026
$19.0M
NIDDK Diabetic Foot Consortium Clinical Research UnitU01DK119083 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI RODICA BUSUI (POP-BUSUI), Crystal Murray Holmes · 2018 to 2026
$5.5M
Diabetic Foot Ulcer Clinical Research UnitU01DK119099 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Gayle M Gordillo, Sashwati Roy · 2018 to 2026
$5.4M
The University of Arizona Wound Care Center Clinical Research UnitU01DK119094 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI GEOFFREY C GURTNER, Wei Zhou · 2018 to 2026
$5.1M
UCSF Diabetic Foot Clinical Research UnitU01DK119100 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Michael S Conte · 2018 to 2026
$5.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK119083NIDDK NIH HHS U01DK119083NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK119094NIDDK NIH HHS U01DK119094NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK119099NIDDK NIH HHS U01DK119099NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK119100NIDDK NIH HHS U01DK119100NIDDK NIH HHS U24 DK122927NIDDK NIH HHS U24DK122927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are the leading cause of amputations in people with diabetes, mainly due to poor wound healing. This study evaluated DFU trial designs and analysed observational data from the two prospective Diabetic Foot Consortium (DFC) studies to estimate longitudinal healing and amputation rates, assess the effects of wound surface area and duration on healing, and inform sample size considerations for future trials. We analysed data from Open Wound Master Protocol (MP, n = 419) and c-Myc Biomarker (n = 140). The primary outcome was complete wound healing. Time-to-event analysis estimated healing and amputation rates, with amputations classified as non-healed. Logistic regression assessed the prediction of healing based on baseline wound characteristics, with model performance evaluated using AUC (area under the curve). Sample size calculations were performed to achieve 80% power. In the MP study, healing rates were 26% by week 12% and 49% by week 32; amputation rates were 4% and 10%, respectively. The c-Myc study showed 38% healing and 2.5% amputation by week 12. Wound area and duration significantly predicted healing (AUC ≥ 0.70 by 24 weeks). For smaller treatment effects, predicted healing rates varied by up to 40% between small and large wounds, impacting sample size. Contemporary DFU trial designs and healing times remained largely unchanged over two decades. While shorter trials (e.g., 12 weeks) theoretically require smaller sample sizes due to reduced outcome variance, they risk failing to capture the full treatment effect. Trial design must account for baseline wound characteristics, which should inform eligibility criteria and follow-up.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalDiabetic FootWound HealingFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSample SizeTime Factorsamputationbiomarkersclinical trialsdiabetic foot ulcerspredictive modelingwound healing

Identifiers

PMID42458776
PMCPMC13373335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.