Observational studyBMJ open2026
Macrovascular burden profiles in diabetes-related foot ulceration: a latent class analysis of a regional Australian cohort.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To identify patterns of co-occurring macrovascular complications among people with diabetes-related foot ulceration (DFU) using latent class analysis (LCA) and describe characteristics associated with identified profiles.
designSingle-centre retrospective clinical audit with secondary observational analysis of routinely collected data.
settingTownsville University Hospital, North Queensland, Australia.
participants381 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one documented DFU managed between 2015 and 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: LCA of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease and heart failure. Model selection considered information criteria, class size, classification certainty, stability and clinical interpretability. Secondary analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between classes. Mortality was examined descriptively because follow-up duration was inconsistently available.
resultsA two-class model had the lowest Akaike information criterion (1464.6), Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (1500.1) and sample-size-adjusted BIC (1471.5), identifying a higher-burden profile (94/381, 24.7%) and lower-burden profile (287/381, 75.3%). Conditional probabilities in higher-burden versus lower-burden profiles were 80.7% vs 20.9% for ischaemic heart disease, 29.6% vs 5.1% for stroke, 63.1% vs 25.8% for peripheral vascular disease and 37.5% vs 5.6% for heart failure. Compared with the lower-burden profile, the higher-burden profile had older age (68.83 vs 63.89 years; p=0.001), lower Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) (51.24 vs 65.77 mL/min/1.73 m²; p<0.001), higher creatinine (156.69 vs 120.39 µmol/L; p=0.013), and more hypertension (93.6% vs 78.0%; p=0.002), dyslipidaemia (87.2% vs 70.3%; p=0.002) and chronic kidney disease (54.3% vs 24.4%; p<0.001). Smoking status differed overall (p=0.017), with current smoking more common in the higher-burden profile (38.0% vs 24.3%). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) did not differ (8.30% vs 8.46%; p=0.628). Recorded mortality was higher in the higher-burden profile (29/78, 37.2% vs 28/269, 10.4%; p<0.001).
conclusionsAmong people with DFU, LCA identified higher-macrovascular-burden and lower-macrovascular-burden profiles that largely reflected cumulative macrovascular disease rather than distinct biological phenotypes. These exploratory findings require replication in contemporary multicentre cohorts.
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.