A summary of evidence for diabetic foot assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To search, appraise and summarize the best evidence of the diabetic foot assessment and provide a reference for the standardization of the clinical diabetic foot evaluation in China. Methods On the computer, the following websites as well as databases were searched: National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) of the USA, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) , National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of UK, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) , New England Guidelines Group (NEGG) , International Guidelines Network (IGN) , American Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ACDC) , World Council of Enterostomal therapists (WCET) , Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses Society (WOCN) , the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) , American Society for Wound Healing, American Diabetes Association (ADA) , American Society for Vascular Surgery (ASVS) , Society of Endocrinology of Chinese Medical Association, Clinical evidence, PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Clinical Key, CINAHL, Best Practice, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, Medlive from January of 2010 to July of 2018 about all evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews on assessment of diabetic foot. Two researchers evaluated the quality of the articles and performed materials extraction, and extracted the evidence from the qualified articles. Results A total of 7 articles were included among which 6 were guidelines and 1 was systemic review. After analyzing them, 9 categories and 32 items of the best evidence contents about diabetic foot assessment were concluded. Conclusions This study summarizes the best evidence for assessment of diabetic foot and provide evidence basis for medical institutions to improve clinical practice of diabetic foot assessment. When applying the evidence into clinical practice, it is necessary to evaluate specific situations, consider patients' values and willingness and select targeted evidence accordingly. Key words: Diabetic foot; Foot ulcer; Assessment; Best evidence; Evidence summary
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".