↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Feasibility and Efficacy of a Smart Mat Technology to Predict Development of Diabetic Plantar Ulcers

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Care, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility and Efficacy of a Smart Mat Technology to Predict Development of Diabetic Plantar Ulcers
Published in
Diabetes Care, May 2017
DOI 10.2337/dc16-2294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert G. Frykberg, Ian L. Gordon, Alexander M. Reyzelman, Shawn M. Cazzell, Ryan H. Fitzgerald, Gary M. Rothenberg, Jonathan D. Bloom, Brian J. Petersen, David R. Linders, Aksone Nouvong, Bijan Najafi

Abstract

We conducted a multicenter evaluation of a novel remote foot-temperature monitoring system to characterize its accuracy for predicting impending diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in a cohort of patients with diabetes with previously healed DFU. We enrolled 132 participants with diabetes and prior DFU in this 34-week cohort study to evaluate a remote foot-temperature monitoring system (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02647346). The study device was a wireless daily-use thermometric foot mat to assess plantar temperature asymmetries. The primary outcome of interest was development of nonacute plantar DFU, and the primary efficacy analysis was the accuracy of the study device for predicting the occurrence of DFU over several temperature asymmetry thresholds. Of the 129 participants who contributed evaluable data to the study, a total of 37 (28.7%) presented with 53 DFU (0.62 DFU/participant/year). At an asymmetry of 2.22°C, the standard threshold used in previous studies, the system correctly identified 97% of observed DFU, with an average lead time of 37 days and a false-positive rate of 57%. Increasing the temperature threshold to 3.20°C decreased sensitivity to 70% but similarly reduced the false-positive rate to 32% with the same lead time of 37 days. Approximately 86% of the cohort used the system at least 3 days a week on average over the study. Given the encouraging study results and the significant burden of DFU, use of this mat may result in significant reductions in morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Other 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Engineering 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 223. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#75,003
of 15,411,062 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Care
#115
of 8,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,821
of 266,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Care
#3
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,411,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.