External validation of the DIAFORA system to predict lower-extremity amputations in a prospective Danish cohort
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, validační studie
PubMed
39340796
PubMed Central
PMC11635586
DOI
10.1111/dme.15443
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- diabetic foot, diabetic foot ulcer, lower‐extremity amputations, scoring systems,
- MeSH
- amputace * statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- diabetická noha * chirurgie epidemiologie MeSH
- dolní končetina chirurgie MeSH
- hodnocení rizik metody MeSH
- kohortové studie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- prediktivní hodnota testů MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- validační studie MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Dánsko epidemiologie MeSH
AIM: A diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) is a major risk factor for lower-extremity amputation (LEA). To help clinicians predict the risk of LEA in people with DFU, the Diabetic Foot Risk Assessment (DIAFORA) system was developed but has never been externally validated. METHODS: In this study, 317 people presenting with a new DFU were included. At baseline, participants were grouped into three groups based on their DIAFORA score: low-risk (<15), medium-risk (15-25), and high-risk (>25). Participants were followed until healing, LEA, death, or at least 3 months. Discriminative accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LRs) and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: All 317 participants completed at least 3 months of follow-up for a median duration of 146 days, during which 12.6% underwent minor amputation and 2.5% major amputation. People in the low- and medium-risk categories had major amputation rates of 0.9% and 2.1%, respectively, and negative LR of major LEA of 0.10 and 0.38, respectively, while the people in the high-risk category had an amputation rate of 25.0% and a positive LR of 12.9. The DIAFORA risk groups had a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 65.7%, with a corresponding AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.87) for the prediction of major LEA. CONCLUSION: The DIAFORA score is a useful tool for risk stratification of people presenting with a newly occurred DFU, with the external validation presenting results similar to those presented in the original study. The DIAFORA score may guide clinicians towards more individualized DFU treatment regimens.
Amsterdam Movement Sciences Rehabilitation and Development program Amsterdam The Netherlands
Clinical Diabetes Center Elisabeth Hospital Essen Essen Germany
Department of Biosciences and Medicine University of Surrey Surrey UK
Department of Diabetes Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine King's College Strand London UK
Diabetic Foot Clinic and Diabetic Department King's College Hospital London UK
Faculty of Medicine Oporto University Porto Portugal
Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust Foot Health Service London UK
Portuguese Red Cross School of Health Lisbon Lisbon Portugal
Retired Physician Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust UK
Steno Diabetes Center North Denmark Aalborg University Hospital Aalborg Denmark
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Nabuurs‐Franssen MH, Huijberts MSP, Nieuwenhuijzen Kruseman AC, Willems J, Schaper NC. Health‐related quality of life of diabetic foot ulcer patients and their caregivers. Diabetologia. 2005;48:1906‐1910. doi:10.1007/s00125-005-1856-6 PubMed DOI
Røikjer J, Werkman NCC, Ejskjaer N, et al. Incidence, hospitalization and mortality and their changes over time in people with a first ever diabetic foot ulcer. Diabet Med. 2021;39:e14725. doi:10.1111/dme.14725 PubMed DOI
Crawford F, Inkster M, Kleijnen J, Fahey T. Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. QJM. 2006;100:65‐86. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcl140 PubMed DOI
Monteiro‐Soares M, Martins‐Mendes D, Vaz‐Carneiro A, Dinis‐Ribeiro M. Lower‐limb amputation following foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: classification systems, external validation and comparative analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015;31:515‐529. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2634 PubMed DOI
Monteiro‐Soares M, Vaz‐Carneiro A, Sampaio S, Dinis‐Ribeiro M. Validation and comparison of currently available stratification systems for patients with diabetes by risk of foot ulcer development. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;167:401‐407. doi:10.1530/EJE-12-0279 PubMed DOI
Monteiro‐Soares M, Dinis‐Ribeiro M. A new diabetic foot risk assessment tool: DIAFORA. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016;32:429‐435. PubMed
van Netten JJ, Bus SA, Apelqvist J, et al. Definitions and criteria for diabetes‐related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024:40. Published online in may 2023. PubMed
Hansen CS, Eldrup E, Yderstræde K, Vind BF, Andersen ST, Røikjer J, Hommel E, Duun E, Jørgensen LB, Ejskjær N. Diabetisk neuropati. https://endocrinology.dk/nbv/diabetes‐melitus/type‐1‐diabetes‐mellitus/ 2022.
Prompers L, Huijberts M, Apelqvist J, et al. High prevalence of ischaemia, infection and serious comorbidity in patients with diabetic foot disease in Europe. Baseline results from the Eurodiale study. Diabetologia. 2007;50:18‐25. doi:10.1007/s00125-006-0491-1 PubMed DOI
Pineda C, Espinosa R, Pena A. Radiographic imaging in osteomyelitis: the role of plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and scintigraphy. Semin Plast Surg. 2009;23:80‐89. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1214160 PubMed DOI PMC
Akhtar S, Schaper N, Apelqvist J, Jude E. A review of the Eurodiale studies: what lessons for diabetic foot care? Curr Diab Rep. 2011;11:302‐309. doi:10.1007/s11892-011-0195-x PubMed DOI
Geiss LS, Li Y, Hora I, Albright A, Rolka D, Gregg EW. Resurgence of diabetes‐related nontraumatic lower‐extremity amputation in the young and middle‐aged adult U.S. Population Diabetes Care. 2019;42:50‐54. doi:10.2337/dc18-1380 PubMed DOI
Røikjer J, Jensen MH, Vestergaard P, Sørensen AM, Laursen HVB, Ejskjær N. Twenty years with diabetes and amputations: a retrospective population‐based cohort study. Diabet Med. 2020;37:2098‐2108. doi:10.1111/dme.14251 PubMed DOI
Røikjer J, Kvist AV, Nikontovic A, et al. Declining incidence of major lower‐extremity amputations in the northern Danish region between 2016 and 2021: the impact of diabetes and preventive vascular procedures. Ann Vasc Surg. 2024;2024:407‐413. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.06.043 PubMed DOI
Røikjer J, Wegeberg A‐M, Nikontovic A, Brock C, Vestergaard P. Prevalence of painful and painless diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the northern Danish region: a population‐based study. Prim Care Diabetes. 2024:S1751‐9918(24)00164‐5. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2024.08.006 PubMed DOI
Beulens JWJ, Yauw JS, Elders PJM, et al. Prognostic models for predicting the risk of foot ulcer or amputation in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and external validation study. Diabetologia. 2021;64:1550‐1562. doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05448-w PubMed DOI PMC
Monteiro‐Soares M, Boyko EJ, Ribeiro J, Ribeiro I, Dinis‐Ribeiro M. Risk stratification systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review. Diabetologia. 2011;54:1190‐1199. doi:10.1007/s00125-010-2030-3 PubMed DOI
Monteiro‐Soares M, Hamilton EJ, Russell DA, et al. Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2023;40:e3645. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3645 PubMed DOI
Abbas ZG, Lutale JK, Game FL, Jeffcoate WJ. Comparison of four systems of classification of diabetic foot ulcers in Tanzania. Diabet Med. 2008;25:134‐137. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02308.x PubMed DOI
Jeon BJ, Choi HJ, Kang JS, Tak MS, Park ES. Comparison of five systems of classification of diabetic foot ulcers and predictive factors for amputation. Int Wound J. 2017;14:537‐545. doi:10.1111/iwj.12642 PubMed DOI PMC
Monteiro‐Soares M, Martins‐Mendes D, Vaz‐Carneiro A, Sampaio S, Dinis‐Ribeiro M. Classification systems for lower extremity amputation prediction in subjects with active diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2014;30:610‐622. doi:10.1002/dmrr.2535 PubMed DOI
Monteiro‐Soares M, Russell D, Boyko EJ, et al. Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36 (Suppl 1):e3273. PubMed