The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Validation of a Diabetic Wound Classification System: The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a wound classification instrument that includes assessment of depth, infection, and ischemia based on the eventual outcome of the wound. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated the medical records of 360 diabetic patients presenting for care of foot wounds at a multidisciplinary tertiary care foot clinic. As per protocol, all patients had a standardized evaluation to assess wound depth, sensory neuropathy, vascular insufficiency, and infection. Patients were assessed at 6 months after their initial evaluation to see whether an amputation had been performed. RESULTS: There was a significant overall trend toward increased prevalence of amputations as wounds increased in both depth (χ2trend = 143.1, P < 0.001) and stage (χ2trend = 91.0, P < 0.001). This was true for every subcategory as well with the exception of noninfected, nonischemic ulcers. There were no amputations performed within this stage during the follow-up period. Patients were more than 11 times more likely to receive a midfoot or higher level amputation if their wound probed to bone (18.3 vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001, χ2 = 31.5, odds ratio (OR) = 11.1, CI = 4.0–30.3). Patients with infection and ischemia were nearly 90 times more likely to receive a midfoot or higher amputation compared with patients in less advanced wound stages (76.5 vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001, χ2 = 133.5, OR = 89.6, CI = 25–316). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes deteriorated with increasing grade and stage of wounds when measured using the University of Texas Wound Classification System.
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.
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
Cited by
Global Vascular Guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.
Conte, M. S., Bradbury, A. W., Kolh, P., White, J. V., Dick, F., Fitridge, R., Mills, J. L., Ricco, J.-B., Suresh, K. R., Murad, M. H., et al. (2019) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.016 · Cited by 2,015
Lipsky, B. A., Berendt, A. R., Cornia, P. B., Pile, J. C., Peters, E. J. G., Armstrong, D. G., Deery, H. G., Embil, J. M., Joseph, W. S., Karchmer, A. W., et al. (2012) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cis346 · Cited by 1,766
Self-citationMills, J. L., Conte, M. S., Armstrong, D. G., Pomposelli, F. B., Schanzer, A., Sidawy, A. N., & Andros, G. (2014) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.003 · Cited by 1,718
Self-citationGlobal vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia
Conte, M. S., Bradbury, A. W., Kolh, P., White, J. V., Dick, F., Fitridge, R., Mills, J. L., Ricco, J.-B., Suresh, K. R., Murad, M. H., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.05.006 · Cited by 1,582
Self-citationJeffcoate, W. J., & Harding, K. G. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13169-8 · Cited by 1,050
Metadata
- Authors
- Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., & Harkless, L. B.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1998-05-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 855-859
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W1971266017
- Cited by
- 1,142
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Validation of a Diabetic Wound Classification System: The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.21.5.855
- The paper
- Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., & Harkless, L. B. (1998). Validation of a Diabetic Wound Classification System: The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.5.855
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.