Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Mar:36 Suppl 1:e3272.
doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3272.

Diabetic foot ulcer classifications: A critical review

Affiliations
Review

Diabetic foot ulcer classifications: A critical review

Matilde Monteiro-Soares et al. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit outcomes of routine care. The aim of this study was to assess published systems of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to determine which should be recommended for a given clinical purpose. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of > 75% people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. Each study was assessed for internal and external validity and reliability. Eight key factors associated with failure to heal were identified from large clinical series and each classification was scored on the number of these key factors included. Classifications were then arranged according to their proposed purpose into one or more of four groups: (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) aid clinical management decision making for an individual case, and (d) audit to compare outcome in different populations. Thirty-seven classification systems were identified of which 18 were excluded for not being validated in a population of >75% DFUs. The included 19 classifications had different purposes and were derived from different populations. Only six were developed in multicentre studies, just 13 were externally validated, and very few had evaluated reliability.Classifications varied in the number (4 - 30), and definition of individual items and the diagnostic tools required. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalization, limb amputation, mortality, and cost. Despite the limitations, there was sufficient evidence to make recommendations on the use of particular classifications for the indications listed above.

Keywords: audit; classification; clinical decision-making; diabetic foot; foot ulcer; outcome prediction; professional communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Jeffcoate WJ, Bus SA, Game FL, et al. Reporting standards of studies and papers on the prevention and management of foot ulcers in diabetes: required details and markers of good quality. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2016;4(9):781-788.
    1. Boyko EJ, Seelig AD, Ahroni JH. Limb- and person-level risk factors for lower-limb amputation in the prospective Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(4):891-898.
    1. Fife CE, Horn SD, Smout RJ, Barrett RS, Thomson B. A predictive model for diabetic foot ulcer outcome: the wound healing index. Adv Wound Care. 2016;5(7):279-287.
    1. Gershater M et al. Complexity of factors related to outcome of neuropathic and neuroischaemic/ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers: a cohort study. Diabetologia. 2009;52(3):398-407.
    1. NHS, National Diabetes Foot Care Audit third annual report, H.Q.I. Partnership, Editor. 2018. https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/National-Diabetes-Foo....

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources