The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Percent Change in Wound Area of Diabetic Foot Ulcers Over a 4-Week Period Is a Robust Predictor of Complete Healing in a 12-Week Prospective Trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—To assess the ability of the 4-week healing rate to predict complete healing over a 12-week period in a large prospective multicenter trial of diabetic patients with foot ulceration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We examined the change in ulcer area over a 4-week period as a predictor of wound healing within 12 weeks in patients who were seen weekly in a prospective, randomized controlled trial. RESULTS—Wound area measurements at baseline and after 4 weeks were performed in 203 patients. The midpoint between the percentage area reduction from baseline at 4 weeks in patients healed versus those not healed at 12 weeks was found to be 53%. Subjects with a reduction in ulcer area greater than the 4-week median had a 12-week healing rate of 58%, whereas those with reduction in ulcer area less than the 4-week median had a healing rate of only 9% (P < 0.01). The absolute change in ulcer area at 4 weeks was significantly greater in healers versus nonhealers (1.5 vs. 0.8 cm2, P < 0.02). The percent change in wound area at 4 weeks in those who healed was 82% (95% CI 70–94), whereas in those who failed to heal, the percent change in wound area was 25% (15–35; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS—The percent change in foot ulcer area after 4 weeks of observation is a robust predictor of healing at 12 weeks. This simple tool may serve as a pivotal clinical decision point in the care of diabetic foot ulcers for early identification of patients who may not respond to standard care and may need additional treatment.
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
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) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.05.006 · Cited by 1,582
The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: A systematic review
Olsson, M., Järbrink, K., Divakar, U., Bajpai, R., Upton, Z., Schmidtchen, A., & Car, J. (2019) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12683 · Cited by 865
Martinengo, L., Olsson, M., Bajpai, R., Soljak, M., Upton, Z., Schmidtchen, A., Car, J., & Järbrink, K. (2019) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.10.005 · Cited by 686
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheehan, P., Jones, P., Caselli, A., Giurini, J. M., & Veves, A.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2003-06-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1879-1882
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2161353253
- Cited by
- 589
- References
- 0
- 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: Percent Change in Wound Area of Diabetic Foot Ulcers Over a 4-Week Period Is a Robust Predictor of Complete Healing in a 12-Week Prospective Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.26.6.1879
- The paper
- Sheehan, P., Jones, P., Caselli, A., Giurini, J. M., & Veves, A. (2003). Percent Change in Wound Area of Diabetic Foot Ulcers Over a 4-Week Period Is a Robust Predictor of Complete Healing in a 12-Week Prospective Trial. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.26.6.1879
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.