MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309245296 · doi:10.1111/iwj.14017

Influencing factors for the recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers: A meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4309245296 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioDiabetic footCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalPeripheral neuropathyAmputationMeta-analysisDiabetes mellitusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to systematically review and identify the related influencing factors for the recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs)in diabetic patients. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang and VIP databases to identify eligible studies published before March 31, 2022 to collect case-control studies or cohort studies on the related influencing factors for the recurrence of DFUs. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, and extracted data. Also, they assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4.1 software. 20 studies were included; 4238 patients were enrolled, in which 1567 were in the DFU recurrence group and 2671 were in the non-recurrent DFU group. Risk factors for the recurrence of DFUs included diabetic peripheral neuropathy (odds ratio [OR] = 4.05, 95% CI, 2.50-6.58, P < 0.00001), peripheral vascular disease (OR = 3.94, 95% CI, 2.65-5.84, P < 0.00001), poor blood glucose control (OR = 3.27, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.79-3.84, P < 0.00001), plantar ulcer (OR = 3.66, 95% CI, 2.06-6.50, P < 0.00001), osteomyelitis (OR = 7.17, 95% CI, 2.29-22.47, P = 0.0007), smoking (OR = 1.98, 95% CI, 1.65-2.38, P < 0.00001), history of amputation (OR = 11.96, 95%CI, 4.60-31.14, P < 00001), multidrug-resistant bacterial infection (OR = 3.61, 95%CI, 3.13-4.17, P < 0.00001), callus (OR = 5.70, 95%CI, 1.36-23.89, P = 0.02), previous diabetic foot ulcer (OR = 4.10, 95% CI, 2.58-6.50, P < 0.00001), duration of previous diabetic foot ulcer >60d (OR = 1.02, 95% CI, 1.00-1.03, P = 0.004), history of vascular intervention (OR = 3.20, 95% CI, 2.13-4.81, P < 0.00001) and Wagner grade III/IV (OR = 4.40, 95% CI, 2.21-8.78, P < 0.0001). However, no significant differences were found in age, duration of diabetes, body mass index, total cholesterol or foot deformity. Recurrence of diabetic foot ulcers is affected by a variety of factors. Thus, we should focus on high-risk groups and take targeted interventions as soon as possible to reduce the recurrence rate of DFUs, because of the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more rigorous studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to verify the conclusion.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.253 · 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