↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

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 (#25 of 3,368)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
102 tweeters
facebook
18 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
305 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 102 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 305 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 299 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 16%
Student > Master 46 15%
Other 40 13%
Student > Postgraduate 36 12%
Unspecified 32 10%
Other 101 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 179 59%
Unspecified 47 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 27 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 16 May 2019.
All research outputs
#170,748
of 12,975,203 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#25
of 3,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,393
of 333,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Vascular Surgery
#2
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,975,203 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 3,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. 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 333,755 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 84 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 97% of its contemporaries.