Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration

Open access
Dorresteijn, Johannes AN, Kriegsman, Didi MW, Assendelft, Willem JJ, Valk, Gerlof D·2012·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ulceration of the feet, which can result in loss of limbs and even death, is one of the major health problems for people with diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient education on the prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 03 September 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8). SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated educational programmes for preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary end points were foot ulceration or ulcer recurrence and amputation. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 12 RCTs included, the effect of patient education on primary end points was reported in only five. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. One of the RCTs showed reduced incidence of foot ulceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.66) and amputation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) during one-year follow-up of diabetes patients at high risk of foot ulceration after a one-hour group education session. However, one similar study, with lower risk of bias, did not confirm this finding (RR amputation 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; RR ulceration 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). Three other studies, also did not demonstrate any effect of education on the primary end points, but were most likely underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self-reported self-care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. Callus, nail problems and fungal infections improved in only one of five RCTs. Only one of the included RCTs was at low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. Yet, based on the only two sufficiently powered studies reporting the effect of patient education on primary end points, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd001488.pub4

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Dorresteijn, J. A., Kriegsman, D. M., Assendelft, W. J., & Valk, G. D.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2012-10-17
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
CD001488-CD001488
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132846438
Cited by
340
References
70
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001488.pub4
The paper
Dorresteijn, J. A., Kriegsman, D. M., Assendelft, W. J., & Valk, G. D. (2012). Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001488.pub4

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.