Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis<sup>†</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetic foot is a severe public health issue, yet rare studies investigated its global epidemiology. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis through searching PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of science, and Cochrane database. We found that that global diabetic foot ulcer prevalence was 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4–7.3%), which was higher in males (4.5%, 95%CI: 3.7–5.2%) than in females (3.5%, 95%CI: 2.8–4.2%), and higher in type 2 diabetic patients (6.4%, 95%CI: 4.6–8.1%) than in type 1 diabetics (5.5%, 95%CI: 3.2–7.7%). North America had the highest prevalence (13.0%, 95%CI: 10.0–15.9%), Oceania had the lowest (3.0%, 95% CI: 0.9–5.0%), and the prevalence in Asia, Europe, and Africa were 5.5% (95%CI: 4.6–6.4%), 5.1% (95%CI: 4.1–6.0%), and 7.2% (95%CI: 5.1–9.3%), respectively. Australia has the lowest (1.5%, 95%CI: 0.7–2.4%) and Belgium has the highest prevalence (16.6%, 95%CI: 10.7–22.4%), followed by Canada (14.8%, 95%CI: 9.4–20.1%) and USA (13.0%, 95%CI: 8.3–17.7%). The patients with diabetic foot ulcer were older, had a lower body mass index, longer diabetic duration, and had more hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and smoking history than patients without diabetic foot ulceration. Our results provide suggestions for policy makers in deciding preventing strategy of diabetic foot ulceration in the future.Key messagesGlobal prevalence of diabetic foot is 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4–7.3%), and the prevalence in North America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania was 13.0% (95%CI: 10.0–15.9%), 5.5% (95%CI: 4.6–6.4%), 5.1% (95%CI: 4.1–6.0%), 7.2% (95%CI: 5.1–9.3%), and 3.0% (95% CI: 0.9–5.0%).Diabetic foot was more prevalent in males than in females, and more prevalent in type 2 diabetic foot patients than in type 1 diabetic foot patients.The patients with diabetic foot were older, had a lower body mass index, longer diabetic duration, and had more hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and smoking history than patients without diabetic foot. Global prevalence of diabetic foot is 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4–7.3%), and the prevalence in North America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania was 13.0% (95%CI: 10.0–15.9%), 5.5% (95%CI: 4.6–6.4%), 5.1% (95%CI: 4.1–6.0%), 7.2% (95%CI: 5.1–9.3%), and 3.0% (95% CI: 0.9–5.0%). Diabetic foot was more prevalent in males than in females, and more prevalent in type 2 diabetic foot patients than in type 1 diabetic foot patients. The patients with diabetic foot were older, had a lower body mass index, longer diabetic duration, and had more hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and smoking history than patients without diabetic foot.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".