Guidelines on diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in patients with foot ulcers and diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)
Open accessAbstract
The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with foot ulcers and diabetes and updates the previous IWGDF Guideline. Up to 50% of patients with diabetes and foot ulceration have concurrent PAD, which confers a significantly elevated risk of adverse limb events and cardiovascular disease. We know that the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of these patients are markedly different to patients with diabetes who do not have PAD and yet there are few good quality studies addressing this important subset of patients. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the patient‐intervention‐comparison‐outcome (PICO) format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical‐scientific literature, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where evidence was not available, and a weighing of the benefits and harms, patient preferences, feasibility and applicability, and costs related to the intervention. We here present the updated 2019 guidelines on diagnosis, prognosis, and management of PAD in patients with a foot ulcer and diabetes, and we suggest some key future topics of particular research interest.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The accuracy of ABI is lower in patients with diabetes.
“However, the accuracy of ABI is lower in patients with diabetes.762,763”
From 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. (2023) · cites this paper as [763]
Beyond LEAD, an ABI ≤0.90 (or >1.40) is associated with an increased risk of death and CV events.
“Beyond LEAD, an ABI ≤0.90 (or >1.40) is associated with an increased risk of death and CV events.762,763”
From 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. (2023) · cites this paper as [763]
A TBI <0.70 is diagnostic for LEAD.
“A TBI <0.70 is diagnostic for LEAD.747,763”
From 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. (2023) · cites this paper as [763]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 383
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Alexandrescu V, Hubermont G. The challenging topic of diabetic foot revascularization: does the angiosome-guided angioplasty may improve outcome. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2012;53(1): 3-12.
- Authors
- Hinchliffe, R. J., Forsythe, R. O., Apelqvist, J., Boyko, E. J., Fitridge, R., Hong, J. P., Katsanos, K., Mills, J. L., Nikol, S., Reekers, J., Venermo, M., Zierler, R. E., Schaper, N. C., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF)
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- British Heart Foundation Centre for Cardiovascular Science (GB)
- Department of Endocrinology University Hospital of Malmö Malmö Sweden
- University of Washington (US)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Asan Medical Center (KR)
- University of Patras (GR)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Asklepios Klinik St. Georg (DE)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Hinchliffe, Robert J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-20
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- e3276-e3276
- ISSN
- 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-7560
- OpenAlex
- W2999937316
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 47 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 52.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Peripheral Artery Disease Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
- Keywords
- peripheral arterial disease, diabetic foot ulcer, diabetes mellitus, diabetic foot, diagnosis, prognosis, management, limb salvage, cardiovascular risk, critical limb ischemia
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Prognosis, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Diabetic Foot, Evidence-Based Medicine, Disease Management, Peripheral Arterial Disease
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