Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictive factors for diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review

Monteiro‐Soares, M., Boyko, E. J., Ribeiro, J., Ribeiro, I., Dinis‐Ribeiro, M.·2012·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

Summary: Improving ability to predict and prevent diabetic foot ulceration is imperative because of the high personal and financial costs of this complication. We therefore conducted a systematic review in order to identify all studies of factors associated with DFU and assess whether available DFU risk stratification systems incorporate those factors of highest potential value. We performed a search in PubMed for studies published through April 2011 that analysed the association between independent variables and DFU. Articles were selected by two investigators‐independently and blind to each other. Divergences were solved by a third investigator. A total of 71 studies were included that evaluated the association between diabetic foot ulceration and more than 100 independent variables. The variables most frequently assessed were age, gender, diabetes duration, BMI, HbA 1c and neuropathy. Diabetic foot ulceration prevalence varied greatly among studies. The majority of the identified variables were assessed by only two or fewer studies. Diabetic neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, foot deformity and previous diabetic foot ulceration or lower extremity amputation – which are the most common variables included in risk stratification systems – were consistently associated with diabetic foot ulceration development. Existing diabetic foot ulceration risk stratification systems often include variables shown repeatedly in the literature to be strongly predictive of this outcome. Improvement of these risk classification systems though is impaired because of deficiencies noted, including a great lack of standardization in outcome definition and variable selection and measurement. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/dmrr.2319

Cites

74 of 74 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

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Boyko, E. J., Ribeiro, J., Ribeiro, I., & Dinis‐Ribeiro, M.
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
574-600
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W1560874819
Cited by
322
References
74
FWCI
1.47
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.