Literature DB >> 32176445

Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019).

Matilde Monteiro-Soares1,2, David Russell3,4, Edward J Boyko5, William Jeffcoate6, Joseph L Mills7, Stephan Morbach8,9, Fran Game10.   

Abstract

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This publication represents a new guideline addressing the use of classifications of diabetic foot ulcers in routine clinical practice and reviews those which have been published. We only consider systems of classification used for active diabetic foot ulcers and do not include those that might be used to define risk of future ulceration. The guidelines are based on a review of the available literature and on expert opinion leading to the identification of eight key factors judged to contribute most to clinical outcomes. Classifications are graded on the number of key factors included as well as on internal and external validation and the use for which a classification is intended. Key factors judged to contribute to the scoring of classifications are of three types: patient related (end-stage renal failure), limb-related (peripheral artery disease and loss of protective sensation), and ulcer-related (area, depth, site, single, or multiple and infection). Particular systems considered for each of the following five clinical situations: (a) communication among health professionals, (b) predicting the outcome of an individual ulcer, (c) as an aid to clinical decision-making for an individual case, (d) assessment of a wound, with/without infection, and peripheral artery disease (assessment of perfusion and potential benefit from revascularisation), and (d) audit of outcome in local, regional, or national populations. We recommend: (a) for communication among health professionals the use of the SINBAD system (that includes Site, Ischaemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection and Depth); (b) no existing classification for predicting outcome of an individual ulcer; (c) the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF (IDSA/IWGDF) classification for assessment of infection; (d) the WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection) system for the assessment of perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularisation; and (e) the SINBAD classification for the audit of outcome of populations.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  classification; diabetic foot; foot ulcer; guidelines

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32176445     DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Metab Res Rev        ISSN: 1520-7552            Impact factor:   4.876


  31 in total

1.  Reliability of a Three-Dimensional Wound Camera and Correlation With Routine Ruler Measurement in Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration.

Authors:  Joel Willem Johan Lasschuit; Jill Featherston; Katherine Thuy Trang Tonks
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2020-11-26

2.  Australian guideline on prevention of foot ulceration: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

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

3.  Australian guideline on management of diabetes-related foot infection: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

Authors:  Robert J Commons; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Sarah A Lynar; Matthew Malone; Edward Raby
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 4.  Australian guideline on diagnosis and management of peripheral artery disease: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

Authors:  Vivienne Chuter; Frank Quigley; Patrik Tosenovsky; Jens Carsten Ritter; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Robert Fitridge
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Effect of tibial cortex transverse transport in patients with recalcitrant diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective multicenter cohort study.

Authors:  Yan Chen; Xiaofang Ding; Yueliang Zhu; Zhongwei Jia; Yong Qi; Mingyong Chen; Jili Lu; Xiaocong Kuang; Jia Zhou; Yongfeng Su; Yongxin Zhao; William Lu; Jinmin Zhao; Qikai Hua
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 4.889

6.  Microbial profile, antimicrobial resistance, and molecular characterization of diabetic foot infections in a university hospital.

Authors:  Azza A Ismail; Marwa A Meheissen; Talaat A Abd Elaaty; Nermine E Abd-Allatif; Heba S Kassab
Journal:  Germs       Date:  2021-03-15

7.  An Efficacy Predictive Method for Diabetic Ulcers Based on Higher-Order Markov Chain-Set Pair Analysis.

Authors:  Le Kuai; Xiao-Ya Fei; Jia-Qi Xing; Jing-Ting Zhang; Ke-Qin Zhao; Kan Ze; Xin Li; Bin Li
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.629

8.  An internet-based algorithm for diabetic foot infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Chao Liu; Wen-Li Shi; Jia-Xing You; Hong-Ye Li; Lin Li
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  Utilisation of the 2019 IWGDF diabetic foot infection guidelines to benchmark practice and improve the delivery of care in persons with diabetic foot infections.

Authors:  Matthew Malone; Adriaan Erasmus; Saskia Schwarzer; Namson S Lau; Mehtab Ahmad; Hugh G Dickson
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Diabetic foot disease: "The Times They are A Changin' ".

Authors:  Sicco A Bus; Jaap J van Netten; Matilde Monteiro-Soares; Benjamin A Lipsky; Nicolaas C Schaper
Journal:  Diabetes Metab Res Rev       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.876

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.