BACKGROUND: Skin temperature assessment is a promising modality for early detection of diabetic foot problems, but its diagnostic value has not been studied. Our aims were to investigate the diagnostic value of different cutoff skin temperature values for detecting diabetes-related foot complications such as ulceration, infection, and Charcot foot and to determine urgency of treatment in case of diagnosed infection or a red-hot swollen foot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The plantar foot surfaces of 54 patients with diabetes visiting the outpatient foot clinic were imaged with an infrared camera. Nine patients had complications requiring immediate treatment, 25 patients had complications requiring non-immediate treatment, and 20 patients had no complications requiring treatment. Average pixel temperature was calculated for six predefined spots and for the whole foot. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for different cutoff skin temperature values using clinical assessment as reference and defined the sensitivity and specificity for the most optimal cutoff temperature value. Mean temperature difference between feet was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for detection of diabetes-related foot complications was a 2.2°C difference between contralateral spots (sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 40%). The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for determining urgency of treatment was a 1.35°C difference between the mean temperature of the left and right foot (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of diabetes-related foot complications based on local skin temperature assessment is hindered by low diagnostic values. Mean temperature difference between two feet may be an adequate marker for determining urgency of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Skin temperature assessment is a promising modality for early detection of diabetic foot problems, but its diagnostic value has not been studied. Our aims were to investigate the diagnostic value of different cutoff skin temperature values for detecting diabetes-related foot complications such as ulceration, infection, and Charcot foot and to determine urgency of treatment in case of diagnosed infection or a red-hot swollen foot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The plantar foot surfaces of 54 patients with diabetes visiting the outpatient foot clinic were imaged with an infrared camera. Nine patients had complications requiring immediate treatment, 25 patients had complications requiring non-immediate treatment, and 20 patients had no complications requiring treatment. Average pixel temperature was calculated for six predefined spots and for the whole foot. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for different cutoff skin temperature values using clinical assessment as reference and defined the sensitivity and specificity for the most optimal cutoff temperature value. Mean temperature difference between feet was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for detection of diabetes-related foot complications was a 2.2°C difference between contralateral spots (sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 40%). The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for determining urgency of treatment was a 1.35°C difference between the mean temperature of the left and right foot (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of diabetes-related foot complications based on local skin temperature assessment is hindered by low diagnostic values. Mean temperature difference between two feet may be an adequate marker for determining urgency of treatment.
Authors: Petra Jones; Richard Bibb; Melanie Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Matthew McCarthy; David Webb; Francesco Zaccardi Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-10-09
Authors: Michelle R Kaminski; Jonathan Golledge; Joel W J Lasschuit; Karl-Heinz Schott; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Anita Raspovic Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: N L Petrova; A Whittam; A MacDonald; S Ainarkar; A N Donaldson; J Bevans; J Allen; P Plassmann; B Kluwe; F Ring; L Rogers; R Simpson; G Machin; M E Edmonds Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Alexander M Reyzelman; Kristopher Koelewyn; Maryam Murphy; Xuening Shen; E Yu; Raji Pillai; Jie Fu; Henk Jan Scholten; Ran Ma Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rob F M van Doremalen; Jaap J van Netten; Jeff G van Baal; Miriam M R Vollenbroek-Hutten; Ferdinand van der Heijden Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2019-06-14
Authors: Constantijn E V B Hazenberg; Wouter B Aan de Stegge; Sjef G Van Baal; Frans L Moll; Sicco A Bus Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 4.876