ArticleDiabetologia2026
Environmental sustainability of offloading care pathways for people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer: a life-cycle assessment.
Article in Diabetologia, 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
Abstract
aims/hypothesisInsights into the environmental impact of diabetes care are scarce and are absent regarding treatments for diabetes-related foot disease. We aimed to compare the environmental impacts of three offloading pathways for people with a plantar foot ulcer.
methodsWe performed a bottom-up, process-based life-cycle assessment according to ISO standards. We defined three evidence-based offloading pathways from first visit to healing: total contact cast (TCC), non-removable walker and removable walker. Inventory data were collected for all activities within scope (materials, waste, transport, energy consumption). Life-cycle assessment was performed using ReCiPe-2016 midpoint and endpoint methods, employing SimaPro and Ecoinvent 3.10. Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000,000 individuals provided the environmental impact per offloading pathway.
resultsEnvironmental impact was lowest for the removable walker pathway and highest for the TCC for all 18 midpoints and five endpoints. For global warming, the mean impact was 141 kg CO CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationDiabetes-related plantar foot ulcer treatment pathways with a walker are likely to result in lower environmental impact compared with the TCC pathway, with the lowest impact for the removable walker pathway. This resulted from using a single device (i.e. no replacements required) and, for the removable walker, fewer visits, despite longer time to healing. Taking environmental impact into account may alter clinical decision-making in offloading treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42829352What 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.