The Reduction of Diabetic Foot Amputations Starts with Preventing Foot Ulcers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As many experts predicted, the worldwide prevalence of diabetes continues to increase. About 425 million people worldwide now have diabetes; half of these are undiagnosed.1 Complications of diabetes, especially foot ulcers and lower limb amputation, are of great concern.2 While this issue’s fascinating continuing education article reports on diabetic myonecrosis (a rare complication of diabetes), the prevention of diabetic foot amputations is a more common and pressing concern that requires global attention. The 5-year survival rate following amputation is lower than that of breast cancer in females or prostate cancer in males.3 The United Nations and others have taken note and are discussing diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases this month in New York City.4 Scientists from the University of Toronto sold the patent rights to insulin for Can $3 so it would be available to all persons with diabetes requiring insulin. Despite this gift to the world, the cost of insulin is unaffordable to people in Africa and other low-income regions. In 2016, two Cape Town Declarations of Action on the reduction of diabetic foot amputations and insulin access for all were signed by a group of nongovernmental organizations. These declarations were designed to galvanize people into action for improved diabetes foot care and insulin access. The vast majority of diabetic foot amputations are preventable. A patient-centered approach by a coordinated interprofessional team can be an effective management plan by implementing the 5 S’s: 1. Screening: Health providers and systems should use validated screening tools including the Simplified 60 Second Diabetic Foot Screening Tool.5,6 2. Smoking cessation: Tobacco use is a known risk factor associated with diabetes-related lower limb amputations. Make appropriate interventions available to patients. 3. Shoes: Shoes, as well as socks and offloading devices, are an essential part of diabetic foot ulcer prevention and treatment. Provision at point of care and affordability of these devices are essential. 4. Systemic blood glucose and blood pressure control: Lowering hemoglobin A1c, controlling blood pressure, and diabetic foot screening are all potential solutions to the diabetes pandemic.7 Improving access to insulin and other essential medicines is key to avoiding diabetic foot amputations. 5. Skin temperature assessments: Infrared thermometry is a simple, inexpensive, and effective tool for clinicians to assess infection even in low- and middle-income populations.8 Research has validated that commercial, nonmedical devices are just as effective as medical-grade infrared thermometers.9 The editors ask Advances in Skin & Wound Care readers two things: What can you do in your local communities and practice to prevent diabetic foot amputations? And how can you move policy makers and politicians in your community toward evidence-based action to reduce diabetic foot amputation?FigureR. Gary Sibbald, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, BSc, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA, JMFigureElizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAAN
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».