The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Off-Loading the Diabetic Foot Wound
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—To compare the effectiveness of total-contact casts (TCCs), removable cast walkers (RCWs), and half-shoes to heal neuropathic foot ulcerations in individuals with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—In this prospective clinical trial, 63 patients with superficial noninfected, nonischemic diabetic plantar foot ulcers were randomized to one of three off-loading modalities: TCC, half-shoe, or RCW. Outcomes were assessed at wound healing or at 12 weeks, whichever came first. Primary outcome measures included proportion of complete wound healing at 12 weeks and activity (defined as steps per day). RESULTS—The proportions of healing for patients treated with TCC, RCW, and half-shoe were 89.5, 65.0, and 58.3%, respectively. A significantly higher proportion of patients were healed by 12 weeks in the TCC group when compared with the two other modalities (89.5 vs. 61.4%, P = 0.026, odds ratio 5.4, 95% CI 1.1–26.1). There was also a significant difference in survival distribution (time to healing) between patients treated with a TCC and both an RCW (P = 0.033) and half-shoe (P = 0.012). Patients were significantly less active in the TCC (600.1 ± 320.0 daily steps) compared with the half-shoe (1,461.8 ± 1,452.3 daily steps, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the average number of steps between the TCC and the RCW (767.6 ± 563.3 daily steps, P = 0.67) or the RCW and the half-shoe (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS—The TCC seems to heal a higher proportion of wounds in a shorter amount of time than two other widely used off-loading modalities, the RCW and the half-shoe.
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
Cites
Young, M. J., Boulton, A. J. M., Macleod, A. F., Williams, D. R. R., & Sonksen, P. H. (1993) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/bf00400697 · Cited by 1,502
Self-citation
Cited by
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-citationJeffcoate, W. J., & Harding, K. G. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13169-8 · Cited by 1,050
Prompers, L., Huijberts, M., Apelqvist, J., Jude, E., Piaggesi, A., Bakker, K., Edmonds, M., Holstein, P., Jirkovska, A., Mauricio, D., et al. (2007) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-006-0491-1 · Cited by 1,023
Armstrong, D. G., & Lavery, L. A. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67695-7 · Cited by 963
Self-citationGornik, H. L., Aronow, H. D., Goodney, P. P., Arya, S., Brewster, L. P., Byrd, L., Chandra, V., Drachman, D. E., Eaves, J. M., Ehrman, J. K., et al. (2024) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001251 · Cited by 771
Metadata
- Authors
- Armstrong, D. G., Nguyen, H. C., Lavery, L. A., van Schie, C. H. M., Boulton, A. J. M., & Harkless, L. B.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2001-06-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1019-1022
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2163459939
- Cited by
- 596
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.59
- 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: Off-Loading the Diabetic Foot Wound. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.24.6.1019
- The paper
- Armstrong, D. G., Nguyen, H. C., Lavery, L. A., van Schie, C. H. M., Boulton, A. J. M., & Harkless, L. B. (2001). Off-Loading the Diabetic Foot Wound. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.24.6.1019
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.