Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A survey of physicians' involvement in the management of diabetic foot ulcers in secondary health care

Jude, EB, Oyibo, SO, Millichip, MM, Boulton, AJM·2003·Practical Diabetes International

Abstract

A survey was conducted to investigate the management of diabetic foot ulcers by physicians in secondary health care. Questionnaires were sent to 160 consultant diabetologists in the UK. Questions covered a number of important issues regarding the management of diabetic foot ulcers. A 50% response rate was recorded. Reportedly, 67.1% of respondents had a designated foot clinic. The majority (61.1%) of physicians used antibiotics for all clinically infected ulcers. Many (67.1%) used antibiotics until clinical signs of infection had resolved, 25.3% used antibiotics until the ulcer healed completely, while 7.6% used antibiotics for a fixed time period. Most (83.5%) physicians used a variety of techniques for off‐loading foot ulcers, and the majority (81.0%) reviewed patients fortnightly or more frequently. Some physicians (30–50%) admitted all patients with complicated foot ulcers: this number was less in centres that had a designated foot clinic (p=0.01). Two‐thirds of physicians used a combination of intravenous antibiotics for inpatients. The availability of vascular surgery, podiatry and orthotist services in each centre was reported by 91.1%, 92.4% and 77.2% of physicians respectively. In conclusion, there is considerable variation and potential deficiencies in certain aspects of diabetic foot care in the UK. National consensus and guidelines are required to streamline the management of diabetic foot ulcers. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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/pdi.456

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.

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Boulton AJM, 1997, Textbook of Diabetes, 1
  2. 10.2337/diacare.21.7.1071 · DOI
  3. 10.3109/17453679508995520 · DOI
  4. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.1999.00132.x · DOI
  5. 10.2337/diacare.24.6.1019 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/BF00400697 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1001/archinte.158.3.289 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1177/107110079902001104 · DOI
  9. Apelqvist J, 2000, International consensus and practical guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 16, S84, 10.1002/1520-7560(200009/10)16:1+<::AID-DMRR113>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  10. 10.2337/diacare.22.9.1428 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jude, E., Oyibo, S., Millichip, M., & Boulton, A.
Venue
Practical Diabetes International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-04
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
89-92
ISSN
  • 1357-8170
  • 1528-252X
Cited by
2
References
0
Language
en

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.