Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infections: A Prospective Study Highlighting the Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Foot infection involving the skin, soft tissues and bony structures, is a common complication of foot ulcers in diabetic individuals and represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Systemic antibiotic treatment must be given as early as possible initially on empirical basis and based on the response to empirical therapy and wound culture and sensitivity results, definitive therapy should be decided. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin for treating diabetic foot infections in Pakistani population. Methods: After taking ethical approval, an interventional phase IV study was conducted in the department of medicine and diabetic clinic, Liaquat University Hospital, Jamshoro, Hyderabad from March 2017 till August 2017. A total of 75 patients with diabetic foot infection who were sensitive to moxifloxacin on culture and sensitivity were included in the study using non-probability convenient sampling technique. All the demographic and clinical information was collected by using a questionnaire specially designed for the study. After making clinical assessment, all the patients were treated with sequential intravenous/oral moxifloxacin for 14 days. Bacteriologic response was based on the results of cultures of specimens of infected skin or soft tissue or blood. The data were analyzed on SPSS version 20.0. Chi-square test was used with significant level set at 0.05. Results: The study results revealed that the majority of patients with diabetic foot ulcer were males with the age of greater than 45 years. Only 21.3% of them had a comorbidity, either hypertension alone or hypertension with ischemic heart disease, whereas 84% of them reported their foot ulcers to be cured at the end of treatment. Furthermore, only younger age was found to have a significant positive association with healing of foot ulcers. Conclusions: Moxifloxacin is effective in treating diabetic foot infections and 84% of the diabetic patients in the present study reported the healing of foot ulcers as a result of a 2-week moxifloxacin treatment. Further evaluation of the role of moxifloxacin in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer is recommended. J Endocrinol Metab. 2018;8(2-3):32-36 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem485w
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".