Cited by 59Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementSkin Diseases and DiabetesFoot and Ankle Surgery

Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: a systematic review.

Open access
Monteiro‐Soares, Matilde, Hamilton, Emma J., Russell, David A., Srisawasdi, Gulapar, Boyko, Edward J., Mills, Joseph L., Jeffcoate, William, Game, Fran·2024·Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit the outcomes of routine care. AIM: This study aimed to assess published systems used to characterise ulcers in people with diabetes to determine which should be recommended to (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) characterise people with infection and/or peripheral arterial disease, and (d) audit to compare outcomes in different populations. This systematic review is part of the process of developing the 2023 guidelines to classify foot ulcers from the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published up to December 2021 which evaluated the association, accuracy or reliability of systems used to classify ulcers in people with diabetes. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of >80% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. RESULTS: We found 28 systems addressed in 149 studies. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for each classification was low or very low, with 19 (68%) of the classifications being assessed by ≤ 3 studies. The most frequently validated system was the one from Meggitt-Wagner, but the articles validating this system focused mainly on the association between the different grades and amputation. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalisation, limb amputation, mortality, and cost. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations, this systematic review provided sufficient evidence to support recommendations on the use of six particular systems in specific clinical scenarios.

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.3645

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In a prospective study of 1666 people with diabetes, equinus deformity was present in 10.3%.

    “In a prospective study of 1666 people with diabetes, equinus deformity was present in 10.3% .31”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [31]

    The review’s Population section (2.2.1) defines eligible studies involving people with diabetes and foot ulcers, while its Eurodiale scores section (3.2.13) discusses amputation prediction, not equinus prevalence. Searches of our full-text copy for “equinus,” “1666,” and “10.3%” found no passage reporting the claimed prospective-study result. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Macfarlane RM, Jeffcoate WJ. Classification of diabetic foot ulcers: the S (AD) SAD system. Diabet Foot. 1999;2:123-126.
  2. NDFA) NDFCA. NDFA Interval Review: July 2014-March 2021; 2022. https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/REF 240_NDFA-Rep_FINAL-v1.1-20220511.pdf
  3. Pertama D, Suryadhi N, Yeasa I. Validitas skor tardivo untuk memprediksi terjadinya amputasi pada kaki diabetes di Rsup San- glash. Medicina. 2018;49(1):33-37.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Hamilton, E. J., Russell, D. A., Srisawasdi, G., Boyko, E. J., Mills, J. L., Jeffcoate, W., & Game, F.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Siriraj Hospital (TH)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust Derby UK
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-05-02
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
e3645-e3645
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W4367834859
Cited by
59
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300633)
  • Raine Medical Research Foundation
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Diseases and Diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
Keywords
diabetic foot ulcer, peripheral arterial disease, infection, amputation prediction, ulcer healing, clinical audit
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Prognosis, Ulcer, Wound Healing, Reproducibility of Results, Foot Ulcer, Diabetic Foot

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