The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Clinical guidelines recommend that all patients with diabetes should be screened annually to establish their risk of foot ulceration. The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the predictive value of diagnostic tests, physical signs and elements from the patient's history in relation to diabetic foot ulcers. Observational studies were identified from: electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL); bibliographies of studies meeting the inclusion criteria; review articles and clinical guidelines; direct contact with authors. Published reports of cohort and case-control studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated from absolute numbers as weighted mean differences, standard mean differences or odds ratios. Adjusted odds ratios from published reports were also extracted. We identified five case-control and 11 cohort studies. The incidence of foot ulcers ranged from 8% to 17% in the cohort studies, with varying lengths of follow-up. Diagnostic tests and physical signs that detect peripheral neuropathy (biothesiometry, monofilaments and absent ankle reflexes), and those that detect excessive plantar pressure (peak plantar pressure and joint deformity) were all significantly associated with future diabetic foot ulceration. However, there was a paucity of evidence concerning the predictive value of symptoms and signs. Further research is needed to establish the independent factors associated with diabetic foot ulceration, particularly elements from a patient's history and physical examination.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Self-citationSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context
(2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926 · Cited by 1,693
Pham, H., Armstrong, D. G., Harvey, C., Harkless, L. B., Giurini, J. M., & Veves, A. (2000) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.23.5.606 · Cited by 654
Cited by
The diabetic foot: grand overview, epidemiology and pathogenesis
Boulton, A. J. M. (2008) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.833 · Cited by 299
LeMaster, J. W., Mueller, M. J., Reiber, G. E., Mehr, D. R., Madsen, R. W., & Conn, V. S. (2008) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20080019 · Cited by 179
Embil, J. M., Albalawi, Z., Bowering, K., & Trepman, E. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.020 · Cited by 43
To Smoke or Not To Smoke: Cigarettes Have a Negative Effect on Wound Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Álvaro-Afonso, F. J., Lázaro-Martínez, J. L., & Papanas, N. (2018) · The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds · doi:10.1177/1534734618808168 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Crawford, F., Inkster, M., Kleijnen, J., & Fahey, T.
- Venue
- QJM
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-12-12
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 65-86
- ISSN
- 0033-5622 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2725
- 1460-2393
- OpenAlex
- W2118076438
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.83
- 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: Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/qjmed/hcl140
- The paper
- Crawford, F., Inkster, M., Kleijnen, J., & Fahey, T. (2006). Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcl140
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.