CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

Senneville, Éric, Albalawi, Zaina, van Asten, Suzanne A, Abbas, Zulfiqarali G, Allison, Geneve, Aragón-Sánchez, Javier, Embil, John M, Lavery, Lawrence A, Alhasan, Majdi, Oz, Orhan, Uçkay, Ilker, Urbančič-Rovan, Vilma, Xu, Zhang-Rong, Peters, Edgar J G·2023·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciad527
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

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 · 10.1093/cid/ciad527

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 171

  1. International Diabetes Federation, 2021, IDF Diabetes Atlas
  2. Raspovic, 2014, Self-reported quality of life and diabetic foot infections, J Foot Ankle Surg, 53, 716, 10.1053/j.jfas.2014.06.011 · DOI
  3. Peters, 2001, Functional status of persons with diabetes-related lower extremity amputations, Diabetes Care, 24, 1799, 10.2337/diacare.24.10.1799 · DOI
  4. Lavery, 2007, Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's diabetic foot infection classification system, Clin Infect Dis, 44, 562, 10.1086/511036 · DOI
  5. Ndosi, 2018, Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: a 12-month prospective observational study, Diabet Med, 35, 78, 10.1111/dme.13537 · DOI
  6. Fitridge, 2023, The intersocietal IWGDF, ESVS, SVS guidelines on peripheral artery disease in people with diabetes mellitus and a foot ulcer, Diab Metab Res Rev
  7. Lipsky, 2004, Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections, Clin Infect Dis, 39, 885, 10.1086/424846 · DOI
  8. Lipsky, 2012, Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections, Clin Infect Dis, 54, e132, 10.1093/cid/cis346 · DOI
  9. Peters, 2016, Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review, Diab Metab Res Rev, 32, 145, 10.1002/dmrr.2706 · DOI
  10. Lipsky, 2020, Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update), Diab Metab Res Rev, 36, e3280, 10.1002/dmrr.3280 · DOI
  11. Peters, 2013, Diagnosis and management of infection in the diabetic foot, Med Clin North Am, 97, 911, 10.1016/j.mcna.2013.04.005 · DOI
  12. Lavery, 2006, Risk factors for foot infections in individuals with diabetes, Diabetes Care, 29, 1288, 10.2337/dc05-2425 · DOI
  13. Hao, 2014, Contribution of infection and peripheral artery disease to severity of diabetic foot ulcers in Chinese patients, Int J Clin Pract, 68, 1161, 10.1111/ijcp.12440 · DOI
  14. Peters, 2005, Diabetic lower extremity infection: influence of physical, psychological, and social factors, J Diab Complications, 19, 107, 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2004.06.002 · DOI
  15. Prompers, 2008, Prediction of outcome in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers: focus on the differences between individuals with and without peripheral arterial disease. The EURODIALE study, Diabetologia, 51, 747, 10.1007/s00125-008-0940-0 · DOI
  16. Chu, 2015, Can we stop antibiotic therapy when signs and symptoms have resolved in diabetic foot infection patients?, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 14, 277, 10.1177/1534734615596891 · DOI
  17. Lavery, 2009, Risk factors for developing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot wounds, Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 83, 347, 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.11.030 · DOI
  18. McMahon, 1995, Host defenses and susceptibility to infection in patients with diabetes mellitus, Infect Dis Clin North Am, 9, 1, 10.1016/S0891-5520(20)30637-1 · DOI
  19. Perner, 2003, High glucose impairs superoxide production from isolated blood neutrophils, Intensive Care Med, 29, 642, 10.1007/s00134-002-1628-4 · DOI
  20. Delamaire, 1997, Impaired leucocyte functions in diabetic patients, Diabet Med, 14, 29, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(199701)14:1<29::AID-DIA300>3.0.CO;2-V · DOI
  21. Callahan, 2016, Predictors of severity in diabetic foot infections, Ann Vasc Surg, 33, 103, 10.1016/j.avsg.2016.01.003 · DOI
  22. Uckay, 2018, An overview on diabetic foot infections, including issues related to associated pain, hyperglycemia and limb ischemia, Curr Pharm Des, 24, 1243, 10.2174/1381612824666180302145754 · DOI
  23. Aragon-Sanchez, 2012, From the diabetic foot ulcer and beyond: how do foot infections spread in patients with diabetes?, Diabet Foot Ankle, 3, 18693, 10.3402/dfa.v3i0.18693 · DOI
  24. Bridges, 1994, Diabetic foot infections. Pathophysiology and treatment, Surg Clin North Am, 74, 537, 10.1016/S0039-6109(16)46328-0 · DOI
  25. Maharaj, 2005, Sepsis and the scalpel: anatomic compartments and the diabetic foot, Vasc Endovascular Surg, 39, 421, 10.1177/153857440503900506 · DOI
  26. Richard, 2012, Diabetes and foot infection: more than double trouble, Diab Metab Res Rev, 28, 46, 10.1002/dmrr.2234 · DOI
  27. Sotto, 2007, Miniaturized oligonucleotide arrays: a new tool for discriminating colonization from infection due to Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot ulcers, Diabetes Care, 30, 2051, 10.2337/dc07-0461 · DOI
  28. Lavery, 2008, Reevaluating the way we classify the diabetic foot: restructuring the diabetic foot risk classification system of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, Diabetes Care, 31, 154, 10.2337/dc07-1302 · DOI
  29. Wukich, 2013, Severity of diabetic foot infection and rate of limb salvage, Foot Ankle Int, 34, 351, 10.1177/1071100712467980 · DOI
  30. Tobalem, 2013, Images in clinical medicine. Evolution of a diabetic foot infection, N Engl J Med, 369, 2252, 10.1056/NEJMicm1211053 · DOI
  31. Jeffcoate, 2016, Reporting standards of studies and papers on the prevention and management of foot ulcers in diabetes: required details and markers of good quality, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 4, 781, 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30012-2 · DOI
  32. Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement, J Clin Epidemiol, 62, 1006, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Malone, 2022, A Systematic review of diagnosis of infection of the diabetic foot (soft tissue and bone): update, PROSPERO
  34. Malone, 2022, A Systematic review of Interventions for diabetic foot infections (soft tissue and bone): update, PROSPERO
  35. Bus, 2023, Standards for the development and methodology of the 2023 IWGDF guidelines, Diab Metab Res Rev
  36. Pickwell, 2015, Predictors of lower-extremity amputation in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer, Diabetes Care, 38, 852, 10.2337/dc14-1598 · DOI
  37. Seth, 2019, Clinical profile and outcome in patients of diabetic foot infection, Int J Appl Basic Med Res, 9, 14, 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_278_18 · DOI
  38. Smith, 2013, The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death, Resuscitation, 84, 465, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.12.016 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Singer, 2016, The third international consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3), JAMA, 315, 801, 10.1001/jama.2016.0287 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Zhan, 2015, The Society for Vascular Surgery lower extremity threatened limb classification system based on wound, ischemia, and foot infection (WIfI) correlates with risk of major amputation and time to wound healing, J Vasc Surg, 61, 939, 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.11.045 · DOI
  41. Ince, 2008, Use of the SINBAD classification system and score in comparing outcome of foot ulcer management on three continents, Diabetes Care, 31, 964, 10.2337/dc07-2367 · DOI
  42. Senneville, 2023, Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: a systematic review, Diab Metab Res Rev
  43. Lavery, 2020, The infected diabetic foot: Re-evaluating the infectious diseases society of America diabetic foot infection classification, Clin Infect Dis, 70, 1573, 10.1093/cid/ciz489 · DOI
  44. Ryan, 2019, Do SIRS criteria predict clinical outcomes in diabetic skin and soft tissue infections?, J Foot Ankle Surg, 58, 1055, 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.06.001 · DOI
  45. Johnson, 2021, Evaluation of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score for detecting necrotizing soft tissue infections in patients with diabetes and lower extremity infection, Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 171, 108520, 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108520 · DOI
  46. Sen, 2021, Predicitive ability of LRINEC score in the prediction of limb loss and mortality in diabetic foot infection, Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 100, 115323, 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115323 · DOI
  47. Ozer Balin, 2019, Pentraxin-3: a new parameter in predicting the severity of diabetic foot infection?, Int Wound J, 16, 659, 10.1111/iwj.13075 · DOI
  48. Barwell, 2017, Diabetic foot infection: antibiotic therapy and good practice recommendations, Int J Clin Pract, 71, e13006, 10.1111/ijcp.13006 · DOI
  49. Park, 2017, Role of pro-calcitonin in infected diabetic foot ulcer, Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 128, 51, 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.04.008 · DOI
  50. Al-Shammaree, 2017, Procalcitonin levels and other biochemical parameters in patients with or without diabetic foot complications, J Res Med Sci, 22, 95, 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_906_16 · DOI
  51. Korkmaz, 2018, The role of serum pro-calcitonin, interleukin-6, and fibrinogen levels in differential diagnosis of diabetic foot ulcer infection, J Diabetes Res, 2018, 7104352, 10.1155/2018/7104352 · DOI
  52. Armstrong, 1996, Value of white blood cell count with differential in the acute diabetic foot infection, J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 86, 224, 10.7547/87507315-86-5-224 · DOI
  53. Jeandrot, 2008, Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein concentrations to distinguish mildly infected from non-infected diabetic foot ulcers: a pilot study, Diabetologia, 51, 347, 10.1007/s00125-007-0840-8 · DOI
  54. Umapathy, 2018, Potential of circulatory procalcitonin as a biomarker reflecting inflammation among South Indian diabetic foot ulcers, J Vasc Surg, 67, 1283, 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.060 · DOI
  55. Majeed, 2019, Role of inflammatory markers in diagnosing diabetic foot infection: a meta-analysis, Infect Dis Clin Pract, 27, 251, 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000763 · DOI
  56. Sharma, 2022, The efficacy of inflammatory markers in diagnosing infected diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic foot osteomyelitis: systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS One, 17, e0267412, 10.1371/journal.pone.0267412 · DOI
  57. Lipsky, 1990, Outpatient management of uncomplicated lower-extremity infections in diabetic patients, Arch Intern Med, 150, 790, 10.1001/archinte.1990.00390160058013 · DOI
  58. Commons, 2018, Managing diabetic foot infections: a survey of Australasian infectious diseases clinicians, J Foot Ankle Res, 11, 13, 10.1186/s13047-018-0256-3 · DOI
  59. van Netten, 2014, Diagnostic values for skin temperature assessment to detect diabetes-related foot complications, Diab Technol Ther, 16, 714, 10.1089/dia.2014.0052 · DOI
  60. Hazenberg, 2014, Assessment of signs of foot infection in diabetes patients using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography, Diab Technol Ther, 16, 370, 10.1089/dia.2013.0251 · DOI
  61. Liu, 2015, Auto matic detection of diabetic foot complications with infrared ther-mography by asymmetric analysis, J Biomed Opt, 20, 26003, 10.1117/1.JBO.20.2.026003 · DOI
  62. Armstrong, 2006, Does dermal thermometry predict clinical outcome in diabetic foot infection? Analysis of data from the SIDESTEP* trial, Int Wound J, 3, 302, 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00269.x · DOI
  63. Gardner, 2008, Wound bioburden and infection-related complications in diabetic foot ulcers, Biol Res Nurs, 10, 44, 10.1177/1099800408319056 · DOI
  64. Gardner, 2009, Clinical signs of infection in diabetic foot ulcers with high microbial load, Biol Res Nurs, 11, 119, 10.1177/1099800408326169 · DOI
  65. Kallstrom, 2014, Are quantitative bacterial wound cultures useful?, J Clin Microbiol, 52, 2753, 10.1128/JCM.00522-14 · DOI
  66. O'Meara, 2006, Systematic review of methods to diagnose infection in foot ulcers in diabetes, Diabet Med, 23, 341, 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01830.x · DOI
  67. Nelson, 2006, A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected dia-betic foot ulcers, Health Technol Assess, 10, 1
  68. Huang, 2016, A comparison of tissue versus swab culturing of infected diabetic foot wounds, Int J Endocrinol, 8198714
  69. Nelson, 2018, CODIFI (concordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England, BMJ Open, 8, e019437, 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019437 · DOI
  70. Abbas, 2012, The utility of Gram stains and culture in the management of limb ulcers in persons with diabetes, Int Wound J, 9, 677, 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00937.x · DOI
  71. Noor, 2018, Molecular and cul ture based assessment of bacterial pathogens in subjects with diabetic foot ulcer, Diab Metab Syndr, 12, 417, 10.1016/j.dsx.2018.03.001 · DOI
  72. Percival, 2018, Role of anaerobes in polymicrobial communities and biofilms complicating diabetic foot ulcers, Int Wound J, 15, 776, 10.1111/iwj.12926 · DOI
  73. Malone, 2017, Next generation DNA sequencing of tissues from infected diabetic foot ulcers, EBioMedicine, 21, 142, 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.06.026 · DOI
  74. Johani, 2019, Understanding the microbiome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: insights from molecular and microscopic approaches, Clin Microbiol Infect, 25, 332, 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.04.036 · DOI
  75. Malone, 2017, Can molecular DNA-based techniques unravel the truth about diabetic foot infections?, Diab Metab Res Rev, 33, e2834, 10.1002/dmrr.2834 · DOI
  76. Chen, 2021, Combining CRISPR-Cas12a-based technology and metagenomics next generation sequencing: a new paradigm for rapid and full-scale detection of microbes in infectious diabetic foot samples, Front Microbiol, 12, 742040, 10.3389/fmicb.2021.742040 · DOI
  77. Lipof, 2021, Comparative study of culture, next-generation sequencing, and immunoassay for identification of pathogen in diabetic foot ulcer, J Orthop Res, 39, 2638, 10.1002/jor.25001 · DOI
  78. Choi, 2021, Next-generation sequencing for pathogen identification in infected foot ulcers, Foot Ankle Orthop, 6
  79. Malone, 2019, Analysis of proximal bone margins in diabetic foot osteomyelitis by conventional culture, DNA sequencing and microscopy, APMIS, 127, 660, 10.1111/apm.12986 · DOI
  80. Meyr, 2018, Level of agreement with a multi-test approach to the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, J Foot Ankle Surg, 57, 1137, 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.05.010 · DOI
  81. Lázaro-Martínez, 2017, Diagnostic and therapeutic update on diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Endocrinol Diab, 64, 100
  82. Senneville, 2016, Editorial commentary: probe-to-bone test for detecting diabetic foot osteomyelitis: rapid, safe, and accurate-but for which patients?, Clin Infect Dis, 63, 949, 10.1093/cid/ciw450 · DOI
  83. Alvaro-Afonso, 2014, Inter-observer reproducibility of diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis based on a combination of probe-to-bone test and simple radiography, Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 105, e3, 10.1016/j.diabres.2014.04.024 · DOI
  84. Lam, 2016, Diagnostic accuracy of probe to bone to detect osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot: a systematic review, Clin Infect Dis, 63, 944, 10.1093/cid/ciw445 · DOI
  85. Grayson, 1995, Probing to bone in infected pedal ulcers. A clinical sign of underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic patients, JAMA, 273, 721, 10.1001/jama.1995.03520330051036 · DOI
  86. Leone, 2022, The role of serial radiographs in diagnosing diabetic foot bone osteomyelitis, Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis, 14, e2022055, 10.4084/MJHID.2022.055 · DOI
  87. Ramanujam, 2018, Medical imaging and laboratory analysis of diagnostic accuracy in 107 consecutive hospitalized patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis and partial foot amputations, Foot Ankle Spec, 11, 433, 10.1177/1938640017750255 · DOI
  88. Van Asten, 2017, The value of inflammatory markers to diagnose and monitor diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Int Wound J, 14, 40, 10.1111/iwj.12545 · DOI
  89. Lavery, 2019, What are the optimal cutoff values for ESR and CRP to diagnose osteomyelitis in patients with diabetes-related foot infections?, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 477, 1594, 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000718 · DOI
  90. Xu, 2021, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate combined with the probe-to-bone test for fast and early diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 20, 227, 10.1177/1534734620923278 · DOI
  91. Dinh, 2008, Diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination and imaging tests for osteomyelitis underlying diabetic foot ulcers: meta-analysis, Clin Infect Dis, 47, 519, 10.1086/590011 · DOI
  92. Cohen, 2019, Added value of MRI to X-ray in guiding the extent of surgical resection in diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis: a review of pathologically proven, surgically treated cases, Skelet Radiol, 48, 405, 10.1007/s00256-018-3045-y · DOI
  93. Baker, 2012, Diabetic musculoskeletal complications and their imaging mimics, Radiographics, 32, 1959, 10.1148/rg.327125054 · DOI
  94. Chatha, 2005, MR imaging of the diabetic foot: diagnostic challenges, Radiol Clin North Am, 43, 747, 10.1016/j.rcl.2005.02.008 · DOI
  95. Cildag, 2018, Angiographic assessment of atherosclerotic load at the lower extremity in patients with diabetic foot and Charcot neuroarthropathy, J Chin Med Assoc, 81, 565, 10.1016/j.jcma.2017.09.006 · DOI
  96. Cildag, 2018, A factor increasing venous contamination on bolus chase three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging: Charcot neuroarthropathy, J Clin Imag Sci, 8, 13, 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_77_17 · DOI
  97. Ertugrul, 2013, Osteomyelitis or Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy? Differentiating these disorders in diabetic patients with a foot problem, Diabet Foot Ankle, 4, 21855, 10.3402/dfa.v4i0.21855 · DOI
  98. La Fontaine, 2016, Comparison between Tc-99 m WBC SPECT/CT and MRI for the diagnosis of biopsy-proven diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Wounds, 28, 271
  99. Sax, 2020, Predicting osteomyelitis in patients whose initial MRI demonstrated bone marrow edema without corresponding T1 signal marrow replacement, Skelet Radiol, 49, 1239, 10.1007/s00256-020-03396-x · DOI
  100. Lauri, 2017, Detection of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot by imaging techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MRI, white blood cell scintigra phy, and FDG-PET, Diabetes Care, 40, 1111, 10.2337/dc17-0532 · DOI · Paper page
  101. Rastogi, 2016, Utility of PET/CT with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-labeled autologous leukocytes for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis in patients with Charcot's neuroarthropathy, Nucl Med Commun, 37, 1253, 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000603 · DOI
  102. Arnon-Sheleg, 2018, Diabetic foot infection: the role of PET-CT imaging, Curr Pharm Des, 24, 1277, 10.2174/1381612824666180227095439 · DOI
  103. Llewellyn, 2020, Imaging for detection of osteomyelitis in people with diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur J Radiol, 131, 109215, 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109215 · DOI
  104. Diez, 2020, Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with 18F-FDG PET/CT to differentiate osteomyelitis from Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy in diabetic foot, Eur J Radiol, 132, 109299, 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109299 · DOI
  105. Atif, 2021, Diagnostic accuracy of 99mtc labeled (29-41) Ubiquicidin SPECT/CT for diagnosis of osteomyelitis in diabetic foot, Pak Armed Forces Med J, 71, 1015, 10.51253/pafmj.v71i3.4102 · DOI
  106. La Fontaine, 2021, Magnetic resonance imaging of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: imaging accuracy in biopsy-proven disease, J Foot Ankle Surg, 60, 17, 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.02.012 · DOI
  107. Senneville, 2020, Diagnosis of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review, Diab Metab Res Rev, 36, e3281, 10.1002/dmrr.3281 · DOI
  108. Senneville, 2020, Diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Diab Metab Res Rev, 36, e3250, 10.1002/dmrr.3250 · DOI
  109. Senneville, 2006, Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: concordance with ulcer swab cultures, Clin Infect Dis, 42, 57, 10.1086/498112 · DOI
  110. Senneville, 2009, Needle puncture and transcutaneous bone biopsy cultures are inconsistent in patients with diabetes and suspected osteomyelitis of the foot, Clin Infect Dis, 48, 888, 10.1086/597263 · DOI
  111. Senneville, 2008, Outcome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis treated nonsurgically: a retrospective cohort study, Diabetes Care, 31, 637, 10.2337/dc07-1744 · DOI
  112. Gramberg, 2021, Using a BonE BiOPsy (BeBoP) to determine the causative agent in persons with diabetes and foot osteomyelitis: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, Trials, 22, 517, 10.1186/s13063-021-05472-6 · DOI
  113. Couturier, 2019, Comparison of microbiological results obtained from per-wound bone biopsies versus trans-cutaneous bone biopsies in diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a prospective cohort study, Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 38, 1287, 10.1007/s10096-019-03547-6 · DOI
  114. Manas, 2021, Admission time deep swab specimens compared with surgical bone sampling in hospitalized individuals with diabetic foot osteomyelitis and soft tissue infection, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 20, 300, 10.1177/1534734620916386 · DOI
  115. Macauley, 2021, Microbiological evaluation of resection margins of the infected diabetic foot ulcer, Diabet Med, 38, e14440, 10.1111/dme.14440 · DOI
  116. Féron, 2021, Reliability and safety of bedside blind bone biopsy performed by a diabetologist for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Diabetes Care, 44, 2480, 10.2337/dc20-3170 · DOI
  117. Kosmopoulou, 2020, Feasibility of percutaneous bone biopsy as part of the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis in a 100% neuropathic, grade 3 IDSA/IWGDF population on an outpatient basis, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 19, 382, 10.1177/1534734620902609 · DOI
  118. Kowalski, 2011, The effect of residual osteomyelitis at the resection margin in patients with surgically treated diabetic foot infection, J Foot Ankle Surg, 50, 171, 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.12.009 · DOI
  119. Atway, 2012, Rate of residual osteomyelitis after partial foot amputation in diabetic patients: a standardized method for evaluating bone margins with intraoperative culture, J Foot Ankle Surg, 51, 749, 10.1053/j.jfas.2012.06.017 · DOI
  120. Hachmoller, 2007, Outcome of minor amputations at the diabetic foot in relation to bone histopathology: a clinical audit, Zentralbl Chir, 132, 491
  121. Mijuskovic, 2018, Culture of bone biopsy specimens overestimates rate of residual osteomyelitis after toe or forefoot amputation, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 100, 1448, 10.2106/JBJS.17.01152 · DOI
  122. Schmidt, 2018, Prospective analysis of surgical bone margins after partial foot amputation in diabetic patients admitted with moderate to severe foot infections, Foot Ankle Spec, 12, 131, 10.1177/1938640018770285 · DOI
  123. Meyr, 2011, Statistical reliability of bone biopsy for the diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, J Foot Ankle Surg, 50, 663, 10.1053/j.jfas.2011.08.005 · DOI
  124. Elmarsafi, 2018, Concordance between bone pathology and bone culture for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis in the presence of Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy, J Foot Ankle Surg, 57, 919, 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.03.016 · DOI
  125. Tardáguila-García, 2021, Diagnostic accuracy of bone culture versus biopsy in diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Adv Skin Wound Care, 34, 204, 10.1097/01.ASW.0000734376.32571.20 · DOI
  126. Lavery, 2019, Are we misdiagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis? Is the gold standard gold? [published correction appears in J foot ankle surg. 2020 may - Jun; 59(3):646], J Foot Ankle Surg, 58, 713, 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.12.010 · DOI
  127. Gardner, 2014, Cultures of diabetic foot ulcers without clinical signs of infection do not predict outcomes, Diabetes Care, 37, 2693, 10.2337/dc14-0051 · DOI
  128. Selva Olid, 2015, Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot infections, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015
  129. Hatipoglu, 2016, Turk-Day Study Group; Causative pathogens and antibiotic resistance in diabetic foot infections: a prospective multi-center study, J Diab Complications, 30, 910, 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.02.013 · DOI
  130. Uçkay, 2019, Principles and practice of antibiotic stewardship in the management of diabetic foot infections, Curr Opin Infect Dis, 32, 95, 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000530 · DOI
  131. Lauf, 2014, Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomyelitis, Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis, 78, 469, 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.12.007 · DOI
  132. Xu, 2016, Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections in China: a Phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial, J Antimicrob Chemother, 71, 1688, 10.1093/jac/dkw004 · DOI
  133. Gariani, 2019, Remission in diabetic foot infections: duration of antibiotic therapy and other possible associated factors, Diab Obes Metab, 21, 244, 10.1111/dom.13507 · DOI
  134. Haug, 2022, The impact of the length of total and intravenous systemic antibiotic therapy for the remission of diabetic foot infections, Int J Infect Dis, 120, 179, 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.03.049 · DOI
  135. Pratama, 2022, A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of antibiotic use in diabetic foot ulcer infections: focus on clinical cure, Infect Chemother, 54, 125, 10.3947/ic.2021.0144 · DOI
  136. Saltoglu, 2021, The effects of antimicrobial resistance and the compatibility of initial antibiotic treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot infection, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 22, 10.1177/15347346211004141 · DOI
  137. Pham, 2022, Moderate to severe soft tissue diabetic foot infections: a randomized, controlled, pilot trial of post-debridement antibiotic treatment for 10 versus 20 days, Ann Surg, 276, 233, 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005205 · DOI
  138. Pham, 2021, Is routine measurement of the serum C-reactive protein level helpful during antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infection?, Diab Obes Metab, 23, 637, 10.1111/dom.14222 · DOI
  139. Spellberg, 2012, Systemic antibiotic therapy for chronic osteomyelitis in adults, Clin Infect Dis, 54, 393, 10.1093/cid/cir842 · DOI
  140. Tone, 2015, Six-week versus twelve-week antibiotic therapy for nonsurgically treated diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a multicenter open-label controlled randomized study, Diabetes Care, 38, 302, 10.2337/dc14-1514 · DOI
  141. Iranparvar, 2019, Comparison of the efficacy of six-week versus twelve-week antibiotic therapy for the treatment of nonsurgical diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Int Med, 1, 274, 10.5455/im.53372 · DOI
  142. Gariani, 2021, Three versus six weeks of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority pilot trial, Clin Inf Dis, 73, e1539, 10.1093/cid/ciaa1758 · DOI
  143. Gill, 2022, Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for residual osteomyelitis after amputation in the diabetic foot, J Foot Ankle Surg, 61, 735, 10.1053/j.jfas.2021.11.006 · DOI
  144. Tan, 1996, Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections reduce the need for above-ankle amputation?, Clin Infect Dis, 23, 286, 10.1093/clinids/23.2.286 · DOI
  145. Faglia, 2006, The role of early surgical debridement and revascularization in patients with diabetes and deep foot space abscess: retrospective review of 106 patients with diabetes, J Foot Ankle Surg, 45, 220, 10.1053/j.jfas.2006.04.002 · DOI
  146. Zhou, 2021, Deferring amputation in diabetic foot osteomyelitis: doing more harm than good?, Open Forum Infect Dis, 8, 10.1093/ofid/ofab184 · DOI
  147. Lin, 2021, The analysis for time of referral to a medical center among patients with diabetic foot infection, BMC Fam Pract, 22, 16, 10.1186/s12875-020-01363-y · DOI · Paper page
  148. Ulcay, 2014, Antibiotherapy with and without bone debridement in diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a retrospective cohort study, Pak J Med Sci, 30, 28
  149. Game, 2008, Primarily non-surgical management of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes, Diabetologia, 51, 962, 10.1007/s00125-008-0976-1 · DOI
  150. Acharya, 2013, Conservative management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 101, e18, 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.06.010 · DOI
  151. Kim, 2021, Association between foot surgery type and subsequent healing in veterans with moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections, Open Forum Infect Dis, 9, 10.1093/ofid/ofab650 · DOI
  152. Feldman, 2021, Amputation versus primary nonoperative management of chronic osteomyelitis involving a pedal digit in diabetic patients, J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 111, 10.7547/19-155 · DOI
  153. Lesens, 2015, Staphylococcus aureus-related diabetic osteomyelitis: medical or surgical management? A French and Spanish retrospective cohort, Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 14, 284, 10.1177/1534734614559931 · DOI
  154. Lázaro-Martínez, 2014, Antibiotics versus conservative surgery for treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a randomized comparative trial, Diabetes Care, 37, 789, 10.2337/dc13-1526 · DOI · Paper page
  155. Aragon-Sanchez, 2018, Modern management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. The when, how and why of conservative approaches, Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther, 16, 35, 10.1080/14787210.2018.1417037 · DOI
  156. Tardáguila-García, 2021, Long-term complications after surgical or medical treatment of predominantly forefoot diabetic foot osteomyelitis: 1 Year follow up, J Clin Med, 10, 1943, 10.3390/jcm10091943 · DOI
  157. Berthol, 2017, Two-step sequential approach for concomitant skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis complicating the diabetic foot, Diabetes Care, 40, e170, 10.2337/dc17-1471 · DOI
  158. Dumville, 2017, Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 6
  159. 2017, Pexiganan versus placebo control for the treatment of mild infections of diabetic foot ulcers (OneStep-2), Clinicaltrialsgov
  160. 2017, Pexiganan versus placebo control for the treatment of mild infections of diabetic foot ulcers (OneStep-1), Clinicaltrialsgov
  161. Lipsky, 2012, Topical application of a gentamicin-collagen sponge combined with systemic antibiotic therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot infections of moderate severity: a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial, J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, 102, 223, 10.7547/1020223 · DOI
  162. Uckay, 2018, A randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of a topical gentamicin-collagen sponge in diabetic patients with a mild foot ulcer infection, SAGE Open Med, 6, 10.1177/2050312118773950 · DOI
  163. Uckay, 2018, A randomized, controlled study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a topical gentamicin collagen sponge in combination with systemic antibiotic therapy in diabetic patients with a moderate or severe foot ulcer infection, BMC Infect Dis, 18, 361, 10.1186/s12879-018-3253-z · DOI
  164. Memon, 2022, Comparison of efficacy of systemic antibiotics alone and combination of systemic antibiotics with gentamicin cream in diabetic foot infections, Pak J Med Sci, 38, 663
  165. Mendame Ehya, 2021, Application and clinical effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement to promote soft tissue granulation in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers complicated by osteomyelitis: a randomized controlled trial, J Diabetes Res, 2021, 9911072, 10.1155/2021/9911072 · DOI
  166. Qin, 2019, Infected bone resection plus adjuvant antibiotic-impregnated calcium sulfate versus infected bone resection alone in the treatment of diabetic forefoot osteomyelitis, BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 20, 246, 10.1186/s12891-019-2635-8 · DOI
  167. Brodell, 2021, Intraoperative site vancomycin powder application in infected diabetic heel ulcers with calcaneal osteomyelitis, Foot Ankle Int, 42, 356, 10.1177/1071100720962480 · DOI
  168. Marson, 2018, A systematic review of local antibiotic devices used to improve wound healing following the surgical management of foot infections in diabetics, Bone Joint Lett J, 100-B, 1409, 10.1302/0301-620X.100B11.BJJ-2018-0720 · DOI
  169. De Giglio, 2021, Efficacy and safety of bioactive glass S53P4 as a treatment for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, J Foot Ankle Sur, 60, 292, 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.06.029 · DOI
  170. Kastrin, 2021, Possible advantages of S53P4 bioactive glass in the treatment of septic osteoarthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint in the diabetic foot, J Clin Med, 10, 1208, 10.3390/jcm10061208 · DOI
  171. Wilson, 2019, Adjunctive rifampin therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis in the veterans health administration, JAMA Netw Open, 2, e1916003, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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.-R., & Peters, E. J. G.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2023-10-02
ISSN
  • 1058-4838
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1093/cid/ciad527
Cited by
192
References
5
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (am)

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