ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
A narrative review of clinical decision support systems in offloading footwear for diabetic foot ulcers.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DFU-GCNet: a global context-enhanced inception network for robust and interpretable diabetic foot ulcer classification.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Research Progress on Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOffloading footwear is a critical intervention for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), as it reduces plantar pressure (PP) and promotes healing. However, decision-making around its prescription remains fragmented, with variability in feature selection, limited personalization, and diverse evaluation approaches. While guidelines, knowledge-based systems, and machine learning (ML) applications have explored elements of decision-making, no clinical decision support system (CDSS) currently exists to provide feature-level prescriptions.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of 45 studies, including 12 guidelines/protocols, 25 knowledge-based systems, and eight ML applications. Studies published from inception to August 2025 were included. Studies were thematically analyzed by type of knowledge, decision logic, evaluation methods, and associated technologies.
resultsGuidelines emphasize PP thresholds (≤200 kPa or ≥25–30% reduction) but lack detailed outputs. Knowledge-based systems apply rule-based and sensor-driven logic, integrating PP monitoring, adherence tracking, and usability testing. ML applications introduce predictive classification, optimization, and generative models, achieving high computational accuracy but with limited explainability and clinical validation. Evaluation practices remain fragmented: biomechanical testing dominates protocols, usability and adherence assessments are common in knowledge-based systems, while ML studies emphasize technical accuracy without linking to long-term clinical outcomes. From this synthesis, we propose a five-component framework for CDSS development that discusses: (1) minimum viable dataset, (2) hybrid decision architecture combining rules, optimization, and explainable ML, (3) structured feature-level outputs, (4) continuous validation and evaluation, and (5) integration into clinical and telehealth workflows.
conclusionThe proposed framework presents a pathway to transform fragmented approaches into scalable, patient-centered CDSSs. Prioritizing interoperable datasets, explainable models, and outcome-driven evaluation will be critical for clinical adoption and improved DFU care.
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.