Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,056

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The North‐West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community‐based patient cohort

Abbott, C. A., Carrington, A. L., Ashe, H., Bath, S., Every, L. C., Griffiths, J., Hann, A. W., Hussein, A., Jackson, N., Johnson, K. E., Ryder, C. H., Torkington, R., Van Ross, E. R. E., Whalley, A. M., Widdows, P., Williamson, S., Boulton, A. J. M.·2002·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aims To determine the incidence of, and clinically relevant risk factors for, new foot ulceration in a large cohort of diabetic patients in the community healthcare setting. Methods Diabetic patients (n = 9710) underwent foot screening in six districts of North‐west England in various healthcare settings. All were assessed at baseline for demographic information, medical and social history, neuropathy symptom score, neuropathy disability score, cutaneous pressure perception (insensitivity to the 10 g monofilament), foot deformities, and peripheral pulses. Two years later, patients were followed up via postal questionnaire to determine the incidence of new foot ulcers. Cox’s proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the independent, relative risk of baseline variables for new foot ulceration. Results New foot ulcers occurred in 291/6613 patients who completed and returned their 2‐year follow‐up questionnaire (2.2% average annual incidence). The following factors were independently related to new foot ulcer risk: ulcer present at baseline (relative risk (95% confidence interval)) 5.32 (3.71–7.64), past history of ulcer 3.05 (2.16–4.31), abnormal neuropathy disability score (≥ 6/10) 2.32 (1.61–3.35), any previous podiatry attendance 2.19 (1.50–3.20), insensitivity to the 10 g monofilament 1.80 (1.36–2.39), reduced pulses 1.80 (1.40–2.32), foot deformities 1.57 (1.22–2.02), abnormal ankle reflexes 1.55 (1.01–2.36) and age 0.99 (0.98–1.00). Conclusions More than 2% of community‐based diabetic patients develop new foot ulcers each year. The neuropathy disability score, 10 g monofilament and palpation of foot pulses are recommended as screening tools in general practice.

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 · 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00698.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,056

Metadata

Authors
Abbott, C. A., Carrington, A. L., Ashe, H., Bath, S., Every, L. C., Griffiths, J., Hann, A. W., Hussein, A., Jackson, N., Johnson, K. E., Ryder, C. H., Torkington, R., Van Ross, E. R. E., Whalley, A. M., Widdows, P., Williamson, S., & Boulton, A. J. M.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
377-384
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W1892066952
Cited by
1,056
References
2
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The North‐West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community‐based patient cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00698.x
The paper
Abbott, C. A., Carrington, A. L., Ashe, H., Bath, S., Every, L. C., Griffiths, J., Hann, A. W., Hussein, A., Jackson, N., Johnson, K. E., Ryder, C. H., Torkington, R., Van Ross, E. R. E., Whalley, A. M., Widdows, P., Williamson, S., & Boulton, A. J. M. (2002). The North‐West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community‐based patient cohort. Diabetic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00698.x

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.