SynthesisDiabetes/metabolism research and reviews2026
Global Epidemiology of Diabetic Foot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDiabetic foot (DF) disease, including ulcerations, amputations, and infections, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Despite their substantial clinical, social, and economic burden, robust global epidemiological estimates remain limited due to fragmented evidence and heterogeneous methodologies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide reliable pooled estimates of incidence and prevalence of DF disease, to explore geographic and demographic variations, and to assess the types of data sources available for epidemiological research.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42025640944), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to December 21, 2024, for observational studies in adults (≥ 18 years) with DM reporting epidemiological measures of DF disease. Data extraction and quality appraisal (Joanna Briggs Institute checklists) were independently performed by four reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using generalised linear mixed-effects models to calculate pooled complication-specific prevalence and incidence rates among patients with diabetes. Heterogeneity among study estimates was assessed using Cochran's Q test, I
resultsEighty-nine studies were included (18 prospective cohorts, 33 retrospective cohorts, 38 cross-sectional), enrolling between 92 and 29,650,811 participants, with data from Europe (N = 29, 32.6%), Asia (N = 25, 28.1%), Africa (N = 16, 18.0%), America (N = 16, 18.0%), and Oceania (N = 3, 3.4%). Pooled global incidence rates were 10.93 cases/1000 person-years (95% CI, 6.67-17.91) for ulcerations, 3.58 (95% CI, 1.93-6.63) for amputations, and 19.11 (95% CI, 4.81-75.97) for infections. Pooled prevalence estimates were 54.57 cases/1000 persons (95% CI, 37.63-78.52) for active ulcerations, 72.63 (95% CI, 48.21-108.02) for past ulcerations, 14.75 (95% CI, 9.52-22.77) for amputations, and 39.17 (95% CI, 6.81-195.07) for infections. Substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionsGlobally, DF disease is common and severe, with incidence and prevalence rates underscoring its important public health impact. Heterogeneity across studies highlighted the influence of geography, methodology, and data sources. These findings may support future clinical and pharmacoepidemiological studies that evaluate new interventions and monitor temporal trends using large-scale data.
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.