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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qingjiao Guo, Ying Gu, Jing Ouyang, Yizhi Zhang, Yang Liu, Meijie Deng, Shirong Long

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.048
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations66
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207