ArticleBMJ public health2024
Evaluating and mapping the evidence that screening for diabetic foot disease meets the criteria for population-wide screening: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Prevalence, Screening Practices and Risk Stratification for Diabetic Foot Complications in Primary Healthcare Clinics: A Cross-Sectional Study in Gauteng Province, South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Observational
- Exploring diabetic foot screening programs with integrated consolidated framework for implementation: Rapid review protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and map the evidence around diabetes-related foot screening using the World Health Organisation screening principles, which set the gold standard for determining the appropriateness of introducing population-wide screening programmes internationally. Design: A scoping review methodology in line with Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data sources: Medline (EBSCO), Scopus, ScienceDirect and EMBASE between 24 May 2022 and 12 July 2022. Reference lists of the selected studies, and 'Google' and 'Google Scholar' were also searched. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were informed by the principles of screening. Articles, published in English since 2000, reporting on the impact of the diabetes-related foot ulcers, effectiveness of treatment available for those identified as being at risk, reliability of screening tests for screening for the at-risk foot and the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, safety and ethics of diabetes-related foot screening programmes were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted by one reviewer, with data extraction headings relating to the principles of screening. A narrative synthesis approach was used to report the information from included studies. Results: 46 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion. Diabetes-related foot ulcers are an important health condition associated with increased risk of mortality and poorer quality of life. However, there is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of treatments to prevent disease development. Moreover, while consensus exists on what screening tools should be used to screen for risk factors, there is no agreement on threshold values. Finally, there is no available information on the potential budgetary, organisational or societal implications of a whole-population diabetes-related foot screening programme. Conclusion: Existing evidence does not support the introduction of an organised population-wide screening programme in the context of World Health Organisation screening principles. Further research on treatment and management strategies for the at-risk foot and of whole-population screening programmes is required.
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.