SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Global gram-negative diabetic foot infection prevalence and its associations with climate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines state that Pseudomonas aeruginosa and overall gram-negative diabetic foot infections (psaDFI and gnDFI) are more common in tropical and subtropical zones vs. temperate zones, and in North Africa/Asia vs. Western Europe/North America based on non-systematic comparisons of cohort studies.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of any design and language published between January 1, 2010, and December 15, 2020, that reported the proportion of participants with DFIs and microbiological tests that were positive or negative for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and/or gram-negatives of any species. We calculated the pooled prevalence of psaDFIs and gnDFIs using random effects models.
resultsWe identified 246 studies (36,788 participants) reporting on psaDFI prevalence and 55 studies (6,079 participants) reporting on gnDFI prevalence. The psaDFI pooled prevalence in tropical, subtropical, and temperate zones was 19% (95%CI 17-22%), 14% (95%CI 12-17%), and 14% (95%CI 11-17%), respectively. The gnDFI pooled prevalence in tropical, subtropical, and temperate zones was 68% (95%CI 61-74%), 54% (95%CI 45-63%), and 43% (95%CI 35-52%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of psaDFIs and gnDFIs was higher in studies conducted in Asia/North Africa [psaDFI 18% (95%CI 16-20%) and gnDFI 57% (95%CI 51-64%)] compared to studies conducted in North America/Western Europe [psaDFI 12% (95%CI 9-16%) and gnDFI 42% (95%CI 32-52%)]. However, the pooled prevalences of these infections were similar in temperate zones of these regions. Few studies reported data on key risk factors for psaDFIs and gnDFIs, including DFI severity (53%) and prior antibiotic exposure (91%), and there was substantial between-study heterogeneity within climate zones and regions.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates psaDFIs and gnDFIs may be more prevalent in tropical zones compared to temperate zones and suggests solar climate zones provide additional nuance compared to the guideline-proposed broad regional groupings. However, available studies lack necessary data to separate the effects of climate and location from other risk factors for psaDFIs and gnDFIs. Our findings cannot establish causality between solar climates, regions, and DFI microbiology. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022279019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919169What 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.