Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Choosing a Practical Screening Instrument to Identify Patients at Risk for Diabetic Foot Ulceration

Armstrong, David G., Lavery, Lawrence A., Vela, Steven A., Quebedeaux, Terri L., Fleischli, John G.·1998·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 3 sensory perception testing instruments to screen for risk of diabetic foot ulceration. METHODS: This case-control study prospectively measured the degree of peripheral sensory neuropathy in diabetic patients with and without foot ulcers. We enrolled 115 age-matched diabetic patients (40% male) with a case-control ratio of approximately 1:3 (30 cases and 85 controls) from a tertiary care diabetic foot specialty clinic. Cases were defined as individuals who had an existing foot ulceration or a history of a recently (< 4 weeks) healed foot ulceration. Controls were defined as subjects with no foot ulceration history. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of 2 commonly used nephropathy assessment tools (vibration perception threshold testing and the Semmes-Weinstein 10-g monofilament wire system) and a 4-question verbal neuropathy score to evaluate for presence of foot ulceration. RESULTS: A vibration perception threshold testing using 25 V and lack of perception at 4 or more sites using the Semmes-Weinstein 10-g monofilament wire system had a significantly higher specificity than neuropathy score used. The neuropathy score was most sensitive when 1 or more answers were affirmative. When modalities were combined, particularly the monofilament wire system plus vibration perception threshold testing and the neuropathy score plus the monofilament wire system, there was a substantial increase in specificity with little or no diminution in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The early detection of peripheral neuropathy or loss of "protective sensation" is paramount to instituting a structured treatment plan to prevent lower extremity amputation. The results of our study suggest that all 3 sensory perception testing instruments are sensitive in identifying patients at risk for ulceration. Combining modalities appears to increase specificity with very little or no diminution in sensitivity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.158.3.289

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., Vela, S. A., Quebedeaux, T. L., & Fleischli, J. G.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
1998-02-09
Volume
158
Issue
3
Pages
289
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053643259
Cited by
451
References
0
FWCI
20.24
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Choosing a Practical Screening Instrument to Identify Patients at Risk for Diabetic Foot Ulceration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.158.3.289
The paper
Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., Vela, S. A., Quebedeaux, T. L., & Fleischli, J. G. (1998). Choosing a Practical Screening Instrument to Identify Patients at Risk for Diabetic Foot Ulceration. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.3.289

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.