A Systematic Review Examining the Association of Falls With Diabetes‐Related Foot Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The aim of this study was to systematically review the risk of falls in people with diabetes‐related foot ulcers (DFU). Methods A systematic search of Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL was undertaken to identify observational studies reporting falls and containing a group of people with a DFU and a control group with diabetes but no DFU. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random effects model. Results Four studies involving 3643 participants with a DFU and 42,436 participants with diabetes but no DFU were included. A meta‐analysis showed high heterogeneity between studies ( I 2 = 95%) and an increased risk of falls in people with DFU (risk ratio 2.25 and 95% CI 1.05–4.84). One study had a low risk of bias and three studies had a high risk of bias. Leave‐one‐out analyses showed that exclusion of the study with the largest effect on heterogeneity resulted in a risk ratio of 1.80 (95% CI 1.33–2.43 and I 2 = 0%). Conclusions Currently available evidence suggests people with a DFU have a higher risk of falls but most past studies have a high risk of bias. Further well‐designed cohort studies are required.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".