The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Practical Criteria for Screening Patients at High Risk for Diabetic Foot Ulceration
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A comprehensive understanding of clinical risk factors for developing foot ulcerations would help clinicians to categorize patients by their risk status and schedule intervention resources accordingly to prevent amputation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors for foot ulcerations among persons with diabetes mellitus. METHOD: We enrolled 225 age-matched patients, 46.7% male, with a ratio of approximately 1:2 cases: controls (76 case-patients and 149 control subjects). Case-patients were defined as subjects who met the enrollment criteria and who had an existing foot ulceration or a recent history of a foot ulceration. Control subjects were defined as subjects with no history of foot ulceration. A stepwise logistic regression model was used for analysis. RESULTS: An elevated plantar pressure (> 65 N/cm2), history of amputation, lengthy duration of diabetes (> 10 years), foot deformities (hallux rigidus or hammer toes), male sex, poor diabetes control (glycosylated hemoglobin > 9%), 1 or more subjective symptoms of neuropathy, and an elevated vibration perception threshold (> 25 V) were significantly associated with foot ulceration. In addition, 59 patients (78%) with ulceration had a rigid deformity directly associated with the site of ulceration. No significant associations were noted between vascular disease, level of formal education, nephropathy, retinopathy, impaired vision, or obesity and foot ulceration on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathy, foot deformity, high plantar pressures, and a history of amputation are significantly associated with the presence of foot ulceration. Although vascular and renal disease may result in delayed wound healing and subsequent amputation, they are not significant risk factors for the development of diabetic foot ulceration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Boulton (2008) · doi:10.2337/dc08-9021 · Cited by 928
Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., & Boulton, A. J. M. (2002) · Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association · doi:10.7547/87507315-92-9-479 · Cited by 196
Self-citationNajafi, B., Ron, E., Enriquez, A., Marin, I., Razjouyan, J., & Armstrong, D. G. (2017) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/1932296816689105 · Cited by 100
Self-citationDepression predicts first but not recurrent diabetic foot ulcers
Gonzalez, J. S., Vileikyte, L., Ulbrecht, J. S., Rubin, R. R., Garrow, A. P., Delgado, C., Cavanagh, P. R., Boulton, A. J. M., & Peyrot, M. (2010) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-010-1821-x · Cited by 96
Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet
(2001) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.91.3.513 · Cited by 74
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Evaluation and Management
Maderal, A. D., Vivas, A. C., Zwick, T. G., & Kirsner, R. S. (2012) · Hospital Practice · doi:10.3810/hp.2012.08.994 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., Vela, S. A., Quebedeaux, T. L., & Fleischli, J. G.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-01-26
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 157
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168925194
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.