Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Impact of wound microbiology on limb preservation in patients with diabetic foot infection

Hung, Shih‐Yuan, Chiu, Cheng‐Hsun, Huang, Chung‐Huei, Lin, Cheng‐Wei, Yeh, Jiun‐Ting, Yang, Hui‐Mei, Huang, Yu‐Yao·2022·Journal of Diabetes Investigation

Abstract

Aims/Introduction: To investigate the association between specific bacterial pathogens and treatment outcome in patients with limb‐threatening diabetic foot infection (LT‐DFI). Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients treated for LT‐DFI in a major diabetic foot center in Taiwan were analyzed between the years 2014 and 2017. Patients with positive wound culture results at first aid were enrolled. Clinical factors, laboratory data, and wound culture results were compared. Lower‐extremity amputations and in‐hospital mortality were defined as a poor outcome. Results: Among the 558 patients, 272 (48.7%) patients had lower extremity amputation and 22 (3.9%) patients had in‐hospital mortality. Gram‐negative bacterial (GNB) infection was the independent factor following factors adjustment. When all the 31 microorganisms were analyzed, only E. coli(adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.60–5.65),Proteus spp. (aOR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.69–5.29), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa(aOR, 2.00; 95% CI 1.20–3.32) were associated with poor outcome. The analysis of specific GNB species in association with major‐ or minor‐ amputation have been reported. No specific pathogen was associated with cause of death in patients with mortality within 30 days. The antimicrobial‐resistant strains were not associated with a poor treatment outcome. Conclusions: The presence of GNB was associated with limb amputations. This study provides insight into more timely and appropriate management of the diabetic foot infection.

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 · 10.1111/jdi.13649

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The odds ratios of poor outcome in individual microorganisms.
Figure 1 The odds ratios of poor outcome in individual microorganisms.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The five most common microorganisms associated with each individual component of poor outcome.
Figure 2 The five most common microorganisms associated with each individual component of poor outcome.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000795 · DOI
  2. 10.1186/s13047-017-0243-0 · DOI
  3. 10.2337/dc19-1614 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00252-1 · DOI
  5. Monteiro‐Soares M, 2020, Diabetic foot ulcer classifications: a critical review, Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 36, 10.1002/dmrr.3272 · DOI
  6. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040672 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.3390/jcm8101538 · DOI
  8. 10.2337/dc05-2425 · DOI
  9. Lipsky BA, 2020, Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update), Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 36, 10.1002/dmrr.3280 · DOI
  10. 10.2337/dc11-0331 · DOI
  11. 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00696_1.x · DOI
  12. 10.1093/cid/cis346 · DOI
  13. 10.4103/0377-4929.41685 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.jcjd.2014.11.002 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/dmrr.464 · DOI
  16. 10.2147/VHRM.S125065 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.03.017 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.09.023 · DOI
  19. 10.1086/424846 · DOI
  20. 10.1371/journal.pone.0091105 · DOI
  21. 10.1128/JCM.00551-07 · DOI
  22. 10.1186/cc8898 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/1534734616661058 · DOI
  24. 10.1086/432803 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1177/153857440503900506 · DOI
  26. 10.2337/dc18-2294 · DOI
  27. 10.3390/jcm8111935 · DOI
  28. 10.1186/s13099-019-0290-0 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.07.011 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.jgar.2018.08.008 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/cid/cis565 · DOI
  32. 10.1093/infdis/169.5.1155 · DOI
  33. 10.1097/01.prs.0000222737.09322.77 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1007/s00125-008-1131-8 · DOI
  35. 10.3947/ic.2018.50.1.11 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/1534734614550311 · DOI
  37. 10.1093/ofid/ofaa161 · DOI
  38. 10.1007/s10096-015-2544-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Hung, S., Chiu, C., Huang, C., Lin, C., Yeh, J., Yang, H., & Huang, Y.
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Investigation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
336-343
ISSN
  • 2040-1116
  • 2040-1124
Cited by
16
References
0
Language
en
Funders
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 109‐2314‐B‐182A‐128)

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: Impact of wound microbiology on limb preservation in patients with diabetic foot infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jdi.13649
The paper
Hung, S., Chiu, C., Huang, C., Lin, C., Yeh, J., Yang, H., & Huang, Y. (2022). Impact of wound microbiology on limb preservation in patients with diabetic foot infection. Journal of Diabetes Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13649