Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Occurrence Using Commonly Available Clinical Information

Open access
Boyko, Edward J., Ahroni, Jessie H., Cohen, Victoria, Nelson, Karin M., Heagerty, Patrick J.·2006·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—The ability of readily available clinical information to predict the occurrence of diabetic foot ulcer has not been extensively studied. We conducted a prospective study of the individual and combined effects of commonly available clinical information in the prediction of diabetic foot ulcer occurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We followed 1,285 diabetic veterans without foot ulcer for this outcome with annual clinical evaluations and quarterly mailed questionnaires to identify foot problems. At baseline we assessed age; race; weight; current smoking; diabetes duration and treatment; HbA1c (A1C); visual acuity; history of laser photocoagulation treatment, foot ulcer, and amputation; foot shape; claudication; foot insensitivity to the 10-g monofilament; foot callus; pedal edema; hallux limitus; tinea pedis; and onychomycosis. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used with backwards stepwise elimination to develop a prediction model for the first foot ulcer occurrence after the baseline examination. RESULTS—At baseline, subjects were 62.4 years of age on average and 98% male. Mean follow-up duration was 3.38 years, during which time 216 foot ulcers occurred, for an incidence of 5.0/100 person-years. Significant predictors (P ≤ 0.05) of foot ulcer in the final model (hazard ratio, 95% CI) included A1C (1.10, 1.06–1.15), impaired vision (1.48, 1.00–2.18), prior foot ulcer (2.18, 1.61–2.95), prior amputation (2.57, 1.60–4.12), monofilament insensitivity (2.03, 1.50–2.76), tinea pedis (0.73, 0.54–0.98), and onychomycosis (1.58, 1.16–2.16). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 at 1 year and 0.76 at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS—Readily available clinical information has substantial predictive power for the development of diabetic foot ulcer and may help in accurately targeting persons at high risk of this outcome for preventive interventions.

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 · 10.2337/dc05-2031

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Boyko, E. J., Ahroni, J. H., Cohen, V., Nelson, K. M., & Heagerty, P. J.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2006-06-01
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
1202-1207
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2146716504
Cited by
396
References
18
FWCI
11.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Occurrence Using Commonly Available Clinical Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/dc05-2031
The paper
Boyko, E. J., Ahroni, J. H., Cohen, V., Nelson, K. M., & Heagerty, P. J. (2006). Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Occurrence Using Commonly Available Clinical Information. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc05-2031

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.