Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevention of foot ulcers in the at‐risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review

Open access
van Netten, J. J., Price, P. E., Lavery, L. A., Monteiro‐Soares, M., Rasmussen, A., Jubiz, Y., Bus, S. A., on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)·2016·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

Background: Prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes is extremely important to help reduce the enormous burden of foot ulceration on both patient and health resources. A comprehensive analysis of reported interventions is not currently available, but is needed to better inform caregivers about effective prevention. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent first and recurrent foot ulcers in persons with diabetes who are at risk for ulceration. Methods: The available medical scientific literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was searched for original research studies on preventative interventions. Both controlled and non‐controlled studies were selected. Data from controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Results: From the identified records, a total of 30 controlled studies (of which 19 RCTs) and another 44 non‐controlled studies were assessed and described. Few controlled studies, of generally low to moderate quality, were identified on the prevention of a first foot ulcer. For the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers, multiple RCTs with low risk of bias show the benefit for the use of daily foot skin temperature measurements and consequent preventative actions, as well as for therapeutic footwear that demonstrates to relieve plantar pressure and that is worn by the patient. To prevent recurrence, some evidence exists for integrated foot care when it includes a combination of professional foot treatment, therapeutic footwear and patient education; for just a single session of patient education, no evidence exists. Surgical interventions can be effective in selected patients, but the evidence base is small. Conclusion: The evidence base to support the use of specific self‐management and footwear interventions for the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers is quite strong, but is small for the use of other, sometimes widely applied, interventions and is practically nonexistent for the prevention of a first foot ulcer and non‐plantar foot ulcer.

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.2701

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
van Netten, J. J., Price, P. E., Lavery, L. A., Monteiro‐Soares, M., Rasmussen, A., Jubiz, Y., Bus, S. A., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-01
Volume
32
Issue
S1
Pages
84-98
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W1804338634
Cited by
422
References
8
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
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: Prevention of foot ulcers in the at‐risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/dmrr.2701
The paper
van Netten, J. J., Price, P. E., Lavery, L. A., Monteiro‐Soares, M., Rasmussen, A., Jubiz, Y., Bus, S. A., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). (2016). Prevention of foot ulcers in the at‐risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2701

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.