Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 775

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

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)

Open access
Lipsky, Benjamin A., Senneville, Éric, Abbas, Zulfiqarali G., Aragón‐Sánchez, Javier, Diggle, Mathew, Embil, John M., Kono, Shigeo, Lavery, Lawrence A., Malone, Matthew, van Asten, Suzanne A., Urbančič‐Rovan, Vilma, Peters, Edgar J.G., 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 published evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

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.3280

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 775

Metadata

Authors
Lipsky, B. A., Senneville, É., Abbas, Z. G., Aragón‐Sánchez, J., Diggle, M., Embil, J. M., Kono, S., Lavery, L. A., Malone, M., van Asten, S. A., Urbančič‐Rovan, V., Peters, E. J. G., & 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
e3280-e3280
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W3012095315
Cited by
775
References
8
FWCI
74.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/dmrr.3280
The paper
Lipsky, B. A., Senneville, É., Abbas, Z. G., Aragón‐Sánchez, J., Diggle, M., Embil, J. M., Kono, S., Lavery, L. A., Malone, M., van Asten, S. A., Urbančič‐Rovan, V., Peters, E. J. G., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). (2020). Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3280

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.