Cited by 226Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsStreptococcal Infections and Treatments

Does this patient with diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity?

Butalia, Sonia·2008·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Osteomyelitis of the lower extremity is a commonly encountered problem in patients with diabetes and is an important cause of amputation and admission to the hospital. The diagnosis of lower limb osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of historical features, physical examination, and laboratory and basic radiographic testing. We searched for systematic reviews of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of lower extremity osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes to compare its performance with the reference standard. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE search of English-language articles published between 1966 and March 2007 related to osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes. Additional articles were identified through a hand search of references from retrieved articles, previous reviews, and polling experts. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies were selected if they (1) described historical features, physical examination, laboratory investigations, or plain radiograph in the diagnosis of lower extremity osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes mellitus, (2) data could be extracted to construct 2 x 2 tables or had reported operating characteristics of the diagnostic measure, and (3) the diagnostic test was compared with a reference standard. Of 279 articles retrieved, 21 form the basis of this review. Data from a single high-quality meta-analysis were used to summarize the diagnostic characteristics of MRI in osteomyelitis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently assigned each study a quality grade using previously published criteria and abstracted operating characteristic data using a standardized instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: The gold standard for diagnosis is bone biopsy. No studies were identified that addressed the utility of the history in the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. An ulcer area larger than 2 cm2 (positive likelihood ratio [LR], 7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-49; negative LR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76) and a positive "probe-to-bone" test result (summary positive LR, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.6-11; negative LR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.76) were the best clinical findings. A erythrocyte sedimentation rate of more than 70 mm/h increases the probability of a diagnosis of osteomyelitis (summary LR, 11; 95% CI, 1.6-79). An abnormal plain radiograph doubles the odds of osteomyelitis (summary LR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-3.3). A positive MRI result increases the likelihood of osteomyelitis (summary LR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.5-5.8). However, a normal MRI result makes osteomyelitis much less likely (summary LR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26). The overall accuracy (ie, the weighted average of the sensitivity and specificity) of the MRI is 89% (95% CI, 83.0%-94.5%). CONCLUSIONS: An ulcer area larger than 2 cm2, a positive probe-to-bone test result, an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of more than 70 mm/h, and an abnormal plain radiograph result are helpful in diagnosing the presence of lower extremity osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes. A negative MRI result makes the diagnosis much less likely when all of these findings are absent. No single historical feature or physical examination reliably excludes osteomyelitis. The diagnostic utility of a combination of findings is unknown.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.299.7.806

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An ankle-brachial index less than 0.90 is approximately 98% specific and approximately 85% sensitive for peripheral artery disease.

    “An ankle-brachial index less than 0.90 is approximately 98% specific and approximately 85% sensitive for peripheral artery disease.35”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Toe pressure of 30 mm Hg or greater, transcutaneous oxygen pressure of 25 mm Hg or greater, and skin perfusion pressure of 40 mm Hg or greater have been associated with higher rates of ulcer healing.

    “Toe pressure of 30 mm Hg or greater, transcutaneous oxygen pressure of 25 mm Hg or greater, and skin perfusion pressure of 40 mm Hg or greater have been associated with higher rates of ulcer healing.35”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 226

Authors
Butalia, S.
Affiliations
St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Butalia, Sonia
Venue
JAMA
Published
2008-02-20
Volume
299
Issue
7
Pages
806
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2142091382
Cited by
226
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 21
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Infections and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Streptococcal Infections and Treatments
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, magnetic resonance imaging, diagnostic accuracy, bone biopsy, diabetic foot ulcer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, radiography, amputation, diagnostic test characteristics, likelihood ratios
MeSH terms
Blood Sedimentation, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Osteomyelitis, Physical Examination, Radiography, Diabetic Foot

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