MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340686904 · doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1333-1

Implementation of foot thermometry plus mHealth to prevent diabetic foot ulcers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2340686904 on OpenAlexfundno aff
María Lazo-Porras, Antonio Bernabé‐Ortiz, Katherine A. Sacksteder, Robert H. Gilman, Germán Málaga, David G. Armstrong, J. Jaime Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMedical Research CouncilInter-American Institute for Global Change ResearchConsejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación TecnológicaU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Science FoundationGrand Challenges CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaWellcome TrustAlliance for Health Policy and Systems Research
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic footFoot (prosody)Randomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusDiabetic foot ulcerPhysical therapyPodiatrymHealthInformed consentProtocol (science)SurgeryNursingAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot neuropathy (DFN) is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus; its early diagnosis and intervention can prevent foot ulcers and the need for amputation. Thermometry, measuring the temperature of the feet, is a promising emerging modality for diabetic foot ulcer prevention. However, patient compliance with at-home monitoring is concerning. Delivering messages to remind patients to perform thermometry and foot care might be helpful to guarantee regular foot monitoring. This trial was designed to compare the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) between participants who receive thermometry alone and those who receive thermometry as well as mHealth (SMS and voice messaging) over a year-long study period. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an evaluator-blinded, randomized, 12-month trial. Individuals with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, aged between 18-80 years, having a present dorsalis pedis pulse in both feet, are in risk group 2 or 3 using the diabetic foot risk classification system (as specified by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot), have an operating cell phone or a caregiver with an operating cell phone, and have the ability to provide informed consent will be eligible to participate in the study. Recruitment will be performed in diabetes outpatient clinics at two Ministry of Health tertiary hospitals in Lima, Peru. INTERVENTIONS: participants in both groups will receive education about foot care at the beginning of the study and they will be provided with a thermometry device (TempStat™). TempStat™ is a tool that captures a thermal image of the feet, which, depending on the temperature of the feet, shows different colors. In this study, if a participant notes a single yellow image or variance between one foot and the contralateral foot, they will be prompted to notify a nurse to evaluate their activity within the previous 2 weeks and make appropriate recommendations. In addition to thermometry, participants in the intervention arm will receive an mHealth component in the form of SMS and voice messages as reminders to use the thermometry device, and instructions to promote foot care. OUTCOMES: the primary outcome is foot ulceration, evaluated by a trained nurse, occurring at any point during the study. DISCUSSION: This study has two principal contributions towards the prevention of DFU. First, the introduction of messages to promote self-management of diabetes foot care as well as using reminders as a strategy to improve adherence to daily home-based measurements. Secondly, the implementation of a thermometry-based strategy complemented by SMS and voice messages in an LMIC setting, with wider implications for scalability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier NCT02373592 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207