Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Reporting standards of studies and papers on the prevention and management of foot ulcers in diabetes: required details and markers of good quality

Open access

Abstract

The evidence base for many aspects of the management of foot ulcers in people with diabetes is weak, and good-quality research, especially relating to studies of direct relevance to routine clinical care, is needed. In this paper, we summarise the core details required in the planning and reporting of intervention studies in the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers, including studies that focus on off-loading, stimulation of wound healing, peripheral artery disease, and infection. We highlight aspects of trial design, conduct, and reporting that should be taken into account to minimise bias and improve quality. We also provide a 21-point checklist for researchers and for readers who assess the quality of published work.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This Personal View from the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot and the European Wound Management Association proposes reporting standards and a 21-point quality checklist for intervention studies on prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers. It argues that poor reporting and heterogeneous study details have undermined the evidence base in this field.

Key findings

  • The paper defines core population, intervention, and outcome details that should be reported in studies of diabetic foot ulcer prevention and management, with separate tables for prevention versus management and for off-loading, peripheral artery disease, and infection.
  • It provides a 21-point scoring system for reports of clinical studies, with each item scored 1 point if the desired answer is “yes”; the maximum score is 21.
  • It reports that ulcer recurrence is roughly 30–40% in the first 12 months after healing, and that in an unselected low-risk UK diabetes population new ulceration is roughly 2% per year; approximately 10,000 individuals would be needed to show a reduction in ulcer incidence to 1.5%, depending on study duration, withdrawals, and power.
  • For ulcer management studies with an intervention phase of 20 weeks or more, the authors state that attrition should be no greater than 25%.

Methods

  • Design: Personal View/expert-opinion guidance developed on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot and the European Wound Management Association.
  • Data/sample: No original patient sample or systematic data collection is reported; the paper synthesises prior systematic reviews, existing reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and GRADE, and EWMA chronic-wound guidance.
  • Main analysis: Narrative synthesis and expert consensus, producing tables of core reporting details and a 21-item checklist for study design, conduct, outcomes, and reporting.

Limitations

  • The paper states it is based on expert opinion, that production of lists of required data is “fraught with difficulty,” and that it is not possible to be more dogmatic because required details differ by study type.
  • The paper states that criteria have yet to be established to determine how the 21-point checklist scores can be stratified into appropriate levels of quality.
  • The paper states its scope excludes non-interventional observational research, animal models, work on specific underlying biological mechanisms, and health-economic aspects; it also notes no consensus exists on acceptable retention/attrition, with the 25% threshold given as the authors’ opinion.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2213-8587(16)30012-2

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 2 Not valid · 10 Not checked · 24 Own results and interpretations

5 more claims

Create a free account to see all 36 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 6

Create a free account to see these claims.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

Items 101–200 of 234

Metadata

Authors
Jeffcoate, W. J., Bus, S. A., Game, F. L., Hinchliffe, R. J., Price, P. E., & Schaper, N. C.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • St George's Hospital (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Jeffcoate, William J
Venue
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
4
Issue
9
Pages
781-788
ISSN
2213-8587 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2385395211
Cited by
234
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5
FWCI
13.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Locations
  • The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Cronfa (Swansea University) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
diabetic foot ulcer, foot ulcer prevention, foot ulcer management, reporting quality, bias in clinical trials, offloading, wound healing stimulation, peripheral arterial disease, infection, trial design
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, 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.