↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

The management of diabetic foot: A clinical practice guideline by the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Vascular Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 6,142)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
98 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
412 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
839 Mendeley
Title
The management of diabetic foot: A clinical practice guideline by the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular Medicine
Published in
Journal of Vascular Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anil Hingorani, Glenn M. LaMuraglia, Peter Henke, Mark H. Meissner, Lorraine Loretz, Kathya M. Zinszer, Vickie R. Driver, Robert Frykberg, Teresa L. Carman, William Marston, Joseph L. Mills, Mohammad Hassan Murad

Abstract

Diabetes mellitus continues to grow in global prevalence and to consume an increasing amount of health care resources. One of the key areas of morbidity associated with diabetes is the diabetic foot. To improve the care of patients with diabetic foot and to provide an evidence-based multidisciplinary management approach, the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular Medicine developed this clinical practice guideline. The committee made specific practice recommendations using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. This was based on five systematic reviews of the literature. Specific areas of focus included (1) prevention of diabetic foot ulceration, (2) off-loading, (3) diagnosis of osteomyelitis, (4) wound care, and (5) peripheral arterial disease. Although we identified only limited high-quality evidence for many of the critical questions, we used the best available evidence and considered the patients' values and preferences and the clinical context to develop these guidelines. We include preventive recommendations such as those for adequate glycemic control, periodic foot inspection, and patient and family education. We recommend using custom therapeutic footwear in high-risk diabetic patients, including those with significant neuropathy, foot deformities, or previous amputation. In patients with plantar diabetic foot ulcer (DFU), we recommend off-loading with a total contact cast or irremovable fixed ankle walking boot. In patients with a new DFU, we recommend probe to bone test and plain films to be followed by magnetic resonance imaging if a soft tissue abscess or osteomyelitis is suspected. We provide recommendations on comprehensive wound care and various débridement methods. For DFUs that fail to improve (>50% wound area reduction) after a minimum of 4 weeks of standard wound therapy, we recommend adjunctive wound therapy options. In patients with DFU who have peripheral arterial disease, we recommend revascularization by either surgical bypass or endovascular therapy. Whereas these guidelines have addressed five key areas in the care of DFUs, they do not cover all the aspects of this complex condition. Going forward as future evidence accumulates, we plan to update our recommendations accordingly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 98 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 839 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 833 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 105 13%
Student > Bachelor 93 11%
Student > Postgraduate 74 9%
Researcher 73 9%
Other 66 8%
Other 182 22%
Unknown 246 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 320 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 119 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 2%
Unspecified 19 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 2%
Other 78 9%
Unknown 267 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 103. 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 28 December 2022.
All research outputs
#408,872
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#43
of 6,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,479
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#1
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 406,425 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 90 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 98% of its contemporaries.