The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of outcome reporting for interventions to treat people with diabetic foot ulceration
Abstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) is a challenging clinical problem that affects up to a quarter of patients with diabetes in their lifetime. An agreed set of outcomes for assessing treatments or interventions for DFU has not previously been considered. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes that are reported in clinical studies assessing a treatment or intervention for DFU, to inform the development of a core outcome set (COS). Methods: Systematic literature searches were performed between January 2016 and March 2019. The search strategy was pre‐registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128250). Two authors independently screened abstracts for full text review. Outcomes were extracted from selected papers verbatim and categorized into domains according to established taxonomy. Consistency of outcome reporting was assessed. Overlapping outcomes were merged independently to condense the extracted list of outcomes for use in forthcoming consensus processes. Results: Of 4645 abstracts identified, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 69 randomized studies, 40 prospective studies and 5 protocols. Some 948 outcomes were extracted verbatim. Outcome reporting was consistent for 474 (53%) outcomes. De‐duplication left 714 unique verbatim outcomes across 33 domains. Merging of overlapping unique verbatim outcomes established 95 merged outcomes. Conclusion: This study describes contemporary outcomes reported in studies assessing interventions for DFU. Outcome reporting is considered to be poor as it was consistent in just over half of outcomes extracted. Merging of outcomes has identified 95 outcomes that can be taken forward in the development of a COS.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The systematic review generated 714 unique outcomes that were subsequently merged into 95 outcomes following application of the COMET taxonomy (8).”
From Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
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
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 · Cited by 3,345
The COMET Handbook: version 1.0
Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Bagley, H., Barnes, K. L., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Clarke, M., Gargon, E., Gorst, S., Harman, N., et al. (2017) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 · Cited by 2,011
Prinsen, C. A. C., Vohra, S., Rose, M. R., Boers, M., Tugwell, P., Clarke, M., Williamson, P. R., & Terwee, C. B. (2016) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 · Cited by 1,106
Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations
Kirkham, J. J., Davis, K., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Tunis, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2017) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447 · Cited by 792
A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery
Dodd, S., Clarke, M., Becker, L., Mavergames, C., Fish, R., & Williamson, P. R. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020 · Cited by 625 · cited 3×
“Adverse events (18) Acute Kidney Injury (5) Maintenance of wound closure (2)”
Young, A. E., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K. N. L., Davies, A., Metcalfe, C., & Blazeby, J. M. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.016 · Cited by 77 · cited 1×
“Complications of revascularization (16) Clinical improvement (5) Measures of psychological morbidity (2)”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- International Diabetes Federation, 2019, IDF Diabetes Atlas
- 10.1002/dmrr.2740 · DOI
- 10.1002/dmrr.2699 · DOI
- 10.1089/wound.2018.0855 · DOI
- 10.1155/2016/6925357 · DOI
- Dumville JC, 2017, Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 6, CD011038
- Edwards J, 2010, Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, CD003556
- Martí‐Carvajal AJ, 2015, Growth factors for treating diabetic foot ulcers, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD008548
- Dumville JC, 2013, Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013, CD009110
- Schaper NC, 2020, Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update), Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 36, e3266, 10.1002/dmrr.3266 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/codi.12378 · DOI
- 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182480a6a · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025135 · DOI
- 10.1186/1745-6215-14-70 · DOI
Cited by
Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: a systematic review.
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Hamilton, E. J., Russell, D. A., Srisawasdi, G., Boyko, E. J., Mills, J. L., Jeffcoate, W., & Game, F. (2024) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.3645 · Cited by 59
Staniszewska, A., Game, F., Nixon, J., Russell, D., Armstrong, D. G., Ashmore, C., Bus, S. A., Chung, J., Chuter, V., Dhatariya, K., et al. (2024) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc24-1112 · Cited by 45
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dovell, G., Staniszewska, A., Ramirez, J., Murray, I., Ambler, G. K., Twine, C. P., & Hinchliffe, R. J.
- Affiliations
- Centre for Surgical Research University of Bristol Bristol UK
- Department of Vascular Surgery North Bristol NHS Trust Bristol UK
- Venue
- Diabetic Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-08-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 10
- ISSN
- 0742-3071
- 1464-5491
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 6
- 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.
