The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive Value of Foot Pressure Assessment as Part of a Population-Based Diabetes Disease Management Program
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the effectiveness of dynamic plantar pressure assessment to determine patients at high risk for neuropathic ulceration. In choosing the cut point, we looked for an optimum combination of sensitivity and specificity of plantar pressure to screen for neuropathic ulceration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 1,666 consecutive individuals with diabetes (50.3% male) presenting to a large urban managed care-based outpatient clinic were enrolled in this longitudinal 2-year outcome study. Patients received a standardized medical and musculoskeletal assessment at the time of enrollment, including evaluation in an onsite gait laboratory. RESULTS—Of the entire population, 263 patients (15.8%) either presented with or developed an ulcer during the 24-month follow-up period. As expected, baseline peak plantar pressure was significantly higher in the ulcerated group than in the group who did not ulcerate (95.5 ± 26.4 vs. 85.1 ± 27.3 N/cm2, P < 0.001). There was also a trend toward increased pressure with increasing numbers of foot deformities, as well as with increasing foot risk classification (P = 0.0001). Peak pressure was not a suitable diagnostic tool by itself to identify high-risk patients. After eliminating patients without loss of protective sensation, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the optimal cut point, as determined by a balance of sensitivity and specificity, was 87.5 N/cm2, yielding a sensitivity of 63.5% and a specificity of 46.3%. CONCLUSIONS—The data from this evaluation continue to support the notion that elevated foot pressure is an important risk factor for foot complications. However, the ROC analysis suggests that foot pressure is a poor tool by itself to predict 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
Cites
Pham, H., Armstrong, D. G., Harvey, C., Harkless, L. B., Giurini, J. M., & Veves, A. (2000) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.23.5.606 · Cited by 654
Self-citation
Cited by
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
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
Activity Patterns of Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulceration
Armstrong, D. G., Lavery, L. A., Kimbriel, H. R., Nixon, B. P., & Boulton, A. J. M. (2003) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.26.9.2595 · Cited by 306
Self-citationGuidelines for the treatment of diabetic ulcers
Steed, D. L., Attinger, C., Colaizzi, T., Crossland, M., Franz, M., Harkless, L., Johnson, A., Moosa, H., Robson, M., Serena, T., et al. (2006) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2006.00176.x · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., Wunderlich, R. P., Tredwell, J., & Boulton, A. J. M.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2003-04-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1069-1073
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2172079584
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.16
- 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: Predictive Value of Foot Pressure Assessment as Part of a Population-Based Diabetes Disease Management Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.26.4.1069
- The paper
- Lavery, L. A., Armstrong, D. G., Wunderlich, R. P., Tredwell, J., & Boulton, A. J. M. (2003). Predictive Value of Foot Pressure Assessment as Part of a Population-Based Diabetes Disease Management Program. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.4.1069
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.