The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Lithuania: a prospective study.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of a multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot care to reduce the incidence of recurrent ulceration and amputations compared with standard care in a 2-year prospective study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 145 patients with a past history of neuropathic foot ulcers but no evidence of peripheral vascular disease entered the study. Subjects were screened for their neuropathic and vascular status at baseline, and all received identical foot care education. The intervention group (n = 56) was followed by the multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, and podiatrists with regular podiatry and reeducation every 3 months and the provision of specialty footwear as required. The standard treatment group was followed in local clinics on a trimonthly basis and received identical screening and education at baseline. RESULTS: There were no significant differences at baseline in age (intervention 59.2+/-13.4, standard treatment 58.5+/-11.5 years), duration of diabetes (14.0+/-7.1 vs. 15.6+/-7.8 years), or neuropathic status (vibration perception threshold [VPT]: 31.1+/-12.1 vs. 33.9+/-11.3 V, neuropathy disability score [NDS]: 8.1+/-1.4 vs. 7.9+/-1.7). All patients had an ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) of >0.9 and at least one palpable foot pulse. Significantly fewer recurrent ulcers were seen in the intervention group than in the standard treatment group during the 2-year period (30.4 vs. 58.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study has demonstrated the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot care together with the provision of specialty footwear in the long-term management of high-risk patients with a history of neuropathic foot ulcers.
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
Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence
Armstrong, D. G., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1615439 · Cited by 4,376
Self-citationLipsky, 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
Hingorani, A., LaMuraglia, G. M., Henke, P., Meissner, M. H., Loretz, L., Zinszer, K. M., Driver, V. R., Frykberg, R., Carman, T. L., Marston, W., et al. (2016) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.003 · Cited by 641
Prevention of foot ulcers in the at‐risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review
van Netten, J. J., Price, P. E., Lavery, L. A., Monteiro‐Soares, M., Rasmussen, A., Jubiz, Y., Bus, S. A., & on behalf of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) (2016) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.2701 · Cited by 422
Musuuza, J., Sutherland, B. L., Kurter, S., Balasubramanian, P., Bartels, C. M., & Brennan, M. B. (2020) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.08.244 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Dargis, V, Pantelejeva, O., Jonushaite, A., Vileikyte, L., & Boulton, A. J.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1999-09-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1428-1431
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W1993552188
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.62
- 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: Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Lithuania: a prospective study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.22.9.1428
- The paper
- Dargis, V, Pantelejeva, O., Jonushaite, A., Vileikyte, L., & Boulton, A. J. (1999). Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach in the management of recurrent diabetic foot ulceration in Lithuania: a prospective study. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.22.9.1428
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.