Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34035053›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2021

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for development of diabetic foot ulceration: an analysis of data from five cohort studies.

Francesca M Chappell, Fay Crawford, Margaret Horne, Graham P Leese, Angela Martin, David Weller, Andrew J M Boulton, Caroline Abbott, Matilde Monteiro-Soares, Aristidis Veves and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Francesca M ChappellCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK F.Chappell@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7742-1757
Fay CrawfordThe School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0473-9959
Margaret HorneCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-2462
Graham P LeeseNinewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0570-5678
Angela MartinVictoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK.
David WellerUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8112-718X
Andrew J M BoultonDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, University of Manchester & Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7856-1201
Caroline AbbottManchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4506-2235
Matilde Monteiro-SoaresMEDICIDS, CINTESIS, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4586-2910
Aristidis VevesBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3901-4405
Richard D RileySchool of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8699-0735
University of Edinburgh · GBBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USKeele University · GBManchester Metropolitan University · GBNHS Fife · GBNHS Tayside · GBUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of the study was to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for foot ulceration in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsDevelopment of a CPR using individual participant data from four international cohort studies identified by systematic review, with validation in a fifth study. Development cohorts were from primary and secondary care foot clinics in Europe and the USA (n=8255, adults over 18 years old, with diabetes, ulcer free at recruitment). Using data from monofilament testing, presence/absence of pulses, and participant history of previous ulcer and/or amputation, we developed a simple CPR to predict who will develop a foot ulcer within 2 years of initial assessment and validated it in a fifth study (n=3324). The CPR's performance was assessed with C-statistics, calibration slopes, calibration-in-the-large, and a net benefit analysis.

resultsCPR scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 had a risk of ulcer within 2 years of 2.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 3.9%), 6.0% (95% CI 3.5% to 9.5%), 14.0% (95% CI 8.5% to 21.3%), 29.2% (95% CI 19.2% to 41.0%), and 51.1% (95% CI 37.9% to 64.1%), respectively. In the validation dataset, calibration-in-the-large was -0.374 (95% CI -0.561 to -0.187) and calibration slope 1.139 (95% CI 0.994 to 1.283). The C-statistic was 0.829 (95% CI 0.790 to 0.868). The net benefit analysis suggested that people with a CPR score of 1 or more (risk of ulceration 6.0% or more) should be referred for treatment.

conclusionThe clinical prediction rule is simple, using routinely obtained data, and could help prevent foot ulcers by redirecting care to patients with scores of 1 or above. It has been validated in a community setting, and requires further validation in secondary care settings.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootAdolescentAdultClinical Decision RulesCohort StudiesEuropeHumansUlcerepidemiologyfoot ulcerationprevention

Identifiers

PMID34035053
PMCPMC8154962
OpenAlexW3165274780

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.