Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 500Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsSkin Diseases and Diabetes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 172 of the 172 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 167 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes‐related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

Open access

Abstract

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence‐based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes‐related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient‐important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes‐related foot care to inform clinical care around patient‐important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes‐related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes‐related foot disease.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This 2023 IWGDF/IDSA guideline updates recommendations for diagnosing and treating diabetes-related foot infections using GRADE, informed by updated systematic reviews that identified 149 studies (62 new). It emphasizes clinical diagnosis and severity classification, appropriate culture and imaging, pathogen-directed antibiotic therapy, and recommends against several adjunctive or topical treatments.

Key findings

  • Diagnosis: diagnose soft-tissue infection clinically and assess severity with the IWGDF/IDSA classification (Strong; Low); consider tissue specimen culture rather than swab (Conditional; Moderate); use conventional rather than molecular microbiology first-line (Strong; Moderate); for osteomyelitis, consider probe-to-bone plus plain X-rays and ESR/CRP/PCT initially (Conditional; Low), MRI if doubt remains (Strong; Moderate), and bone rather than soft-tissue samples for culture (Conditional; Moderate).
  • Treatment: for soft-tissue DFI, use any systemic regimen shown effective in RCTs at standard dosing (Strong; High) for 1–2 weeks (Strong; High), possibly up to 3–4 weeks if extensive and resolving slowly or with severe PAD (Conditional; Low); do not treat clinically uninfected ulcers with antibiotics to reduce infection risk or promote healing (Best Practice Statement).
  • Osteomyelitis: consider up to 3 weeks of antibiotics after minor amputation with positive bone margin culture and 6 weeks without bone resection or amputation (Conditional; Low); consider surgical resection with systemic antibiotics (Conditional; Low) or antibiotics without surgery for selected forefoot osteomyelitis without immediate drainage need, PAD, or exposed bone (Conditional; Low).
  • Adjunctive/topical: suggest not using G-CSF, topical antiseptics, silver preparations, honey, bacteriophage therapy, or negative-pressure wound therapy (Conditional; Low); not using topical antibiotics with systemic antibiotics (Conditional; Low); and not using HBO or topical oxygen therapy solely to treat a DFI (Conditional; Low).

Methods

  • GRADE framework was used, structured around P(A)ICO questions, patient-important outcomes, systematic review of evidence, certainty assessment, and moving from evidence to recommendations; a multidisciplinary IWGDF/IDSA working group developed the guideline.
  • Two 2019 systematic reviews were updated; 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified and incorporated; reviews followed PRISMA and protocols were registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022324795, CRD42022324812).
  • Recommendations were discussed and voted on, with a 60% quorum required and majority vote for final decisions; strength was rated strong or conditional and certainty high, moderate, low, or very low.

Limitations

  • The paper states many recommendations are conditional with low certainty, and evidence was limited by high risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and lack of a definitive criterion standard.
  • The paper identifies areas with absent or inconsistent evidence, including rifampicin for diabetes-related foot osteomyelitis, bioactive glass, new antibiotics, molecular microbiology’s impact on management, optimal antibiotic durations, and whether bone biopsy improves outcomes.
  • Evident from the text: this is a guideline based on systematic reviews and expert consensus rather than new primary data; the data availability statement says no new data were created or analyzed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dmrr.3687

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

F I G U R E 1 An overview of the diagnosis and management of patients with Diabetes -related foot infections (DFIs) (from Lipsky et al. DMRR 2019). Remark: perform non -invasive bedside test for peripheral artery disease (PAD).
F I G U R E 1 An overview of the diagnosis and management of patients with Diabetes -related foot infections (DFIs) (from Lipsky et al. DMRR 2019). Remark: perform non -invasive bedside test for peripheral artery disease (PAD).CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 2 Not valid · 96 Not checked · 56 Own results and interpretations

69 more claims

Create a free account to see all 154 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 59
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 172 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. International Diabetes Federation, 2021, IDF Diabetes Atlas
  2. Malone M, 2022, A Systematic review of diagnosis of infection of the diabetic foot (soft tissue and bone): update, PROSPERO
  3. Malone M, 2022, A Systematic review of Interventions for diabetic foot infections (soft tissue and bone): update, PROSPERO
  4. Royal College of Physicians, 2012, National Early Warning Score (NEWS). Standardising the Assessment of Acute‐Illness Severity in the NHS
  5. Peters EJG, 2023, Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: update 2023 systematic review, Diab Metab Res Rev
  6. 2017, Pexiganan versus placebo control for the treatment of mild infections of diabetic foot ulcers (OneStep‐2), Clinicaltrialsgov
  7. 2017, Pexiganan versus placebo control for the treatment of mild infections of diabetic foot ulcers (OneStep‐1), Clinicaltrialsgov

Cited by

Items 101–200 of 500

Metadata

Authors
Senneville, 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., Uçkay, I., Urbančič‐Rovan, V., Xu, Z., & Peters, E. J. G.
Affiliations
  • Université de Lille (FR)
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (TZ)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • Hospital La Paloma (ES)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Medicine Prisma Health‐Midlands Columbia South Carolina USA
  • UT Southwestern Medical Center Dallas Texas USA
  • Balgrist University Hospital Zurich Switzerland
  • University of Ljubljana (SI)
  • Diabetes Centre Beijing China
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
Corresponding author
Senneville, Éric
Venue
Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-10
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
e3687-e3687
ISSN
  • 1520-7552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-7560
OpenAlex
W4387241578
Cited by
498
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 266 · 2025: 176 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 9
FWCI
14.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Infections and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Diseases and Diabetes
Keywords
diabetic foot, soft tissue infection, bone infection, infection severity classification, microbiological sampling, antimicrobial therapy, empirical treatment, surgical treatment, adjunctive therapy, limb amputation prevention, foot care
MeSH terms
Communicable Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Foot, Humans, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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.