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 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 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3).
Singer, M., Deutschman, C. S., Seymour, C. W., Shankar-Hari, M., Annane, D., Bauer, M., Bellomo, R., Bernard, G. R., Chiche, J.-D., Coopersmith, C. M., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287 · Cited by 28,250
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305 · cited 2×
“tion-comparison-outcome (PICO) format, systematic literature searches, and assessment of the available evidence, followed by developing recommendations and their rationale.(36,37) First, a multidisciplinary working group of independent experts (the authors of this guideline) was installed by the IWGDF editorial board.”
BackgroundMethodSmith, G. B., Prytherch, D. R., Meredith, P., Schmidt, P. E., & Featherstone, P. I. (2013) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.016 · Cited by 1,077
Alonso-Coello, P., Oxman, A. D., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., Treweek, S., Mustafa, R. A., Vandvik, P. O., Meerpohl, J., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i2089 · Cited by 814 · cited 2×
“tion-comparison-outcome (PICO) format, systematic literature searches, and assessment of the available evidence, followed by developing recommendations and their rationale.(36,37) First, a multidisciplinary working group of independent experts (the authors of this guideline) was installed by the IWGDF editorial board.”
BackgroundMethodJeffcoate, W. J., Bus, S. A., Game, F. L., Hinchliffe, R. J., Price, P. E., & Schaper, N. C. (2016) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(16)30012-2 · Cited by 234
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.
Liu, Z., Dumville, J. C., Hinchliffe, R. J., Cullum, N., Game, F., Stubbs, N., Sweeting, M., & Peinemann, F. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010318.pub3 · Cited by 173
Lauri, C., Tamminga, M., Glaudemans, A. W. J. M., Juárez Orozco, L. E., Erba, P. A., Jutte, P. C., Lipsky, B. A., IJzerman, M. J., Signore, A., & Slart, R. H. J. A. (2017) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc17-0532 · Cited by 163
Self-citationDisparities in outcomes of patients admitted with diabetic foot infections.
Tan, T.-W., Shih, C.-D., Concha-Moore, K. C., Diri, M. M., Hu, B., Marrero, D., Zhou, W., & Armstrong, D. G. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211481 · Cited by 111
Cited by
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
Armstrong, D. G., Tan, T.-W., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.10578 · Cited by 1,928
Gornik, H. L., Aronow, H. D., Goodney, P. P., Arya, S., Brewster, L. P., Byrd, L., Chandra, V., Drachman, D. E., Eaves, J. M., Ehrman, J. K., et al. (2024) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001251 · Cited by 771
Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)
Bus, S. A., Lavery, L. A., Monteiro‐Soares, M., Rasmussen, A., Raspovic, A., Sacco, I. C. N., van Netten, J. J., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (2020) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.3269 · Cited by 517
Self-citationSenneville, É., Albalawi, Z., van Asten, S. A., Abbas, Z. G., Allison, G., Aragón‐Sánchez, J., Embil, J. M., Lavery, L. A., Alhasan, M., Oz, O., et al. (2024) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.3687 · Cited by 498
Self-citationHinchliffe, R. J., Forsythe, R. O., Apelqvist, J., Boyko, E. J., Fitridge, R., Hong, J. P., Katsanos, K., Mills, J. L., Nikol, S., Reekers, J., et al. (2020) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.3276 · Cited by 383
Self-citation
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
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.
