Cited by 24Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsOrthopedic Infections and Treatments

The analysis for time of referral to a medical center among patients with diabetic foot infection.

Open access
Lin, Cheng-Wei, Yang, Hui-Mei, Hung, Shih-Yuan, Chen, I-Wen, Huang, Yu-Yao·2021·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot infection (DFI) is a limb- and life-threatening complication for diabetic patients needing immediate and comprehensive treatment. Early referral of DFI patients to a diabetic foot center is recommended but there appears limited validated evidence, with the association between referral time and clinical outcomes of limb- preservation or in-hospital mortality still lacking. METHODS: This retrospective research studied consecutive type 2 diabetic patients with DFI treated at the major diabetic foot center in Taiwan from 2014 to 2017. Six hundred and sixty-eight patients presented with limb-threatening DFI. After stratifying their referral days into quartiles, the demographic information and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two patients were placed in the first quartile (Q1) with less than 9 days of referral time; 164 in the second quartile (Q2) with 9-21 days; 167 in the third quartile (Q3) with 21-59 days; and 165 in the fourth quartile (Q4) with >59 days. End-stage renal disease (ESRD), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were noted as being higher in the Q4 group compared with the Q1 group (25.45% vs 20.35% in ESRD, 47.27% vs 26.16% in MACE and 78.79% vs 52.33% in PAD respectively). The Q1 group had more patients presenting with systemic inflammatory responsive syndrome (SIRS) (29.07% in Q1 vs 25.45% in Q4 respectively, P=0.019). Regarding poor outcome (major lower-extremity amputation (LEA) or in-hospital mortality), the Q4 group had 21.21% of patients in this category and the Q1 group had 10.47%. The odds ratio of each increased referral day on poor prognosis was 1.006 with 95% confidence interval 1.003-1.010 (P=<0.001). In subgroups, the impact on poor prognosis by day was most obvious in patients with SIRS (OR 1.011, 95% CI 1.004-1.018, P=0.003) and those with PAD (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001-1.008, P=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The deferred referral of DFI patients to the diabetic foot center might be associated with poor treatment outcome either in major LEA or mortality, particularly in patients with SIRS or PAD. Both physician and patient awareness of disease severity and overcoming the referral barrier is suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

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 · 10.1186/s12875-020-01363-y

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • More recent trials did not show a significant effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

    “but more recent trials did not show a significant effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.52,71”

    From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

    The Results section examines referral timing and outcomes in patients with diabetic foot infection, not trials of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Searches for “hyperbaric oxygen therapy” and randomized trials found no passage in our copy addressing whether that therapy had a significant effect. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, C.-W., Yang, H.-M., Hung, S.-Y., Chen, I.-W., & Huang, Y.-Y.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
  • Chang Gung University (TW)
Corresponding author
Huang, Yu-Yao
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2021-01-09
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118784196
Cited by
24
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou (CORPG3J0021)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Streptococcal Infections and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Infections and Treatments
Keywords
diabetic foot infection, referral timing, type 2 diabetes, lower limb amputation, in-hospital mortality, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, peripheral arterial disease, end-stage renal disease, major adverse cardiac events, limb salvage, prognosis, Taiwan
MeSH terms
Amputation, Surgical, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Diabetic Foot

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