Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019)

Open access
Monteiro‐Soares, Matilde, Russell, David, Boyko, Edward J., Jeffcoate, William, Mills, Joseph L., Morbach, Stephan, Game, Fran, on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)·2020·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This publication represents a new guideline addressing the use of classifications of diabetic foot ulcers in routine clinical practice and reviews those which have been published. We only consider systems of classification used for active diabetic foot ulcers and do not include those that might be used to define risk of future ulceration. The guidelines are based on a review of the available literature and on expert opinion leading to the identification of eight key factors judged to contribute most to clinical outcomes. Classifications are graded on the number of key factors included as well as on internal and external validation and the use for which a classification is intended. Key factors judged to contribute to the scoring of classifications are of three types: patient related (end‐stage renal failure), limb‐related (peripheral artery disease and loss of protective sensation), and ulcer‐related (area, depth, site, single, or multiple and infection). Particular systems considered for each of the following five clinical situations: (a) communication among health professionals, (b) predicting the outcome of an individual ulcer, (c) as an aid to clinical decision‐making for an individual case, (d) assessment of a wound, with/without infection, and peripheral artery disease (assessment of perfusion and potential benefit from revascularisation), and (d) audit of outcome in local, regional, or national populations. We recommend: (a) for communication among health professionals the use of the SINBAD system (that includes Site, Ischaemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection and Depth); (b) no existing classification for predicting outcome of an individual ulcer; (c) the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF (IDSA/IWGDF) classification for assessment of infection; (d) the WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection) system for the assessment of perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularisation; and (e) the SINBAD classification for the audit of outcome of populations.

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.3273

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Russell, D., Boyko, E. J., Jeffcoate, W., Mills, J. L., Morbach, S., Game, F., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03
Volume
36
Issue
S1
Pages
e3273-e3273
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W3011411239
Cited by
271
References
1
FWCI
27.39
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: Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/dmrr.3273
The paper
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Russell, D., Boyko, E. J., Jeffcoate, W., Mills, J. L., Morbach, S., Game, F., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). (2020). Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019). Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3273

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.