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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction model developed on the basis of meta-analysis in the field of medicine: a systematic survey and methodological summaries.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Could an Internet-Based Foot-Ankle Therapeutic Exercise Program Modify Clinical Outcomes and Gait Biomechanics in People with Diabetic Neuropathy? A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Trial
- Precision nutrition in diabetic foot ulcers: multimodal artificial intelligence for personalized metabolic management.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Staged management of infected diabetic foot ulcers: a 300-patient cohort study on prognostic grading, pathogen dynamics, and individualized risk prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing or updating fair and precise clinical prediction models for individual risk-part 1: binary outcomes.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Article
- What characteristics are most important in stratifying patients into groups with different risk of diabetic foot ulceration?Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024Article
- Clinical decision support systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
- Risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcer development or amputation: a review of reviews.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.