Cited by 176Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 137 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

12. Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Foot Care: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025

Open access

Abstract

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

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/dc25-s012

Cites

137 of 137 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

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

Show all 136 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hallaj, Association between glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists exposure and intraocular pressure change: GLP-1 receptor agonists and intraocular pressure change, Am J Ophthalmol

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed, N. A., McCoy, R. G., Aleppo, G., Balapattabi, K., Beverly, E. A., Briggs Early, K., Bruemmer, D., Callaghan, B. C., Echouffo-Tcheugui, J. B., Ekhlaspour, L., Frykberg, R. G., Garg, R., Garg, S. J., Giurini, J. M., Khunti, K., Lal, R., Lingvay, I., Matfin, G., Pandya, N., Pekas, E. J., Pilla, S. J., Polsky, S., Segal, A. R., Seley, J. J., Stanton, R. C., & Bannuru, R. R.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2024-12-09
Volume
48
Issue
Supplement_1
Pages
S252-S265
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W4405187498
Cited by
176
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 102 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 5
FWCI
10.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK121942)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic foot care, diabetes complications, clinical guidelines, quality of care
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Neuropathies, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Diabetic Foot, Standard of Care

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