A shift in priority in diabetic foot care and research: 75% of foot ulcers are preventable

Diabetic foot ulceration poses a heavy burden on the patient and the healthcare system, but prevention thereof receives little attention. For every euro spent on ulcer prevention, ten are spent on ulcer healing, and for every randomized controlled trial conducted on prevention, ten are conducted on healing. In this article, we argue that a shift in priorities is needed. For the prevention of a first foot ulcer, we need more insight into the effect of interventions and practices already applied globally in many settings. This requires systematic recording of interventions and outcomes, and well-designed randomized controlled trials that include analysis of cost-effectiveness. After healing of a foot ulcer, the risk of recurrence is high. For the prevention of a recurrent foot ulcer, home monitoring of foot temperature, pressure-relieving therapeutic footwear, and certain surgical interventions prove to be effective. The median effect size found in a total of 23 studies on these interventions is large, over 60%, and further increases when patients are adherent to treatment. These interventions should be investigated for efficacy as a state-of-the-art integrated foot care approach, where attempts are made to assure treatment adherence. Effect sizes of 75-80% may be expected. If such state-of-the-art integrated foot care is implemented, the majority of problems with foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes can be resolved. It is therefore time to act and to set a new target in diabetic foot care. This target is to reduce foot ulcer incidence with at least 75%.

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.

Lower limb biomechanical characteristics of patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: The diabetes foot ulcer study protocol

Background Foot ulceration is the main precursor to lower limb amputation in patients with type 2 diabetes worldwide. Biomechanical factors have been implicated in the development of foot ulceration; however the association of these factors to ulcer healing remains less clear. It may be hypothesised that abnormalities in temporal spatial parameters (stride to stride measurements), kinematics (joint movements), kinetics (forces on the lower limb) and plantar pressures (pressure placed on the foot during walking) contribute to foot ulcer healing. The primary aim of this study is to establish the biomechanical characteristics (temporal spatial parameters, kinematics, kinetics and plantar pressures) of patients with plantar neuropathic foot ulcers compared to controls without a history of foot ulcers. The secondary aim is to assess the same biomechanical characteristics in patients with foot ulcers and controls over-time to assess whether these characteristics remain the same or change throughout ulcer healing. Methods/Design The design is a case–control study nested in a six-month longitudinal study. Cases will be participants with active plantar neuropathic foot ulcers (DFU group). Controls will consist of patients with type 2 diabetes (DMC group) and healthy participants (HC group) with no history of foot ulceration. Standardised gait and plantar pressure protocols will be used to collect biomechanical data at baseline, three and six months. Descriptive variables and primary and secondary outcome variables will be compared between the three groups at baseline and follow-up. Discussion It is anticipated that the findings from this longitudinal study will provide important information regarding the biomechanical characteristic of type 2 diabetes patients with neuropathic foot ulcers. We hypothesise that people with foot ulcers will demonstrate a significantly compromised gait pattern (reduced temporal spatial parameters, kinematics and kinetics) at base line and then throughout the follow-up period compared to controls. The study may provide evidence for the design of gait-retraining, neuro-muscular conditioning and other approaches to off-load the limbs of those with foot ulcers in order to reduce the mechanical loading on the foot during gait and promote ulcer healing.

How do Australian podiatrists manage patients with diabetes The Australian diabetic foot management survey

Background Diabetic foot complications are the leading cause of lower extremity amputation and diabetes-related hospitalisation in Australia. Studies demonstrate significant reductions in amputations and hospitalisation when health professionals implement best practice management. Whilst other nations have surveyed health professionals on specific diabetic foot management, to the best of the authors’ knowledge this appears not to have occurred in Australia. The primary aim of this study was to examine Australian podiatrists’ diabetic foot management compared with best practice recommendations by the Australian National Health Medical Research Council. Methods A 36-item Australian Diabetic Foot Management survey, employing seven-point Likert scales (0 = Never; 7 = Always) to measure multiple aspects of best practice diabetic foot management was developed. The survey was briefly tested for face and content validity. The survey was electronically distributed to Australian podiatrists via professional associations. Demographics including sex, years treating patients with diabetes, employment-sector and patient numbers were also collected. Chi-squared and Mann Whitney U tests were used to test differences between sub-groups. Results Three hundred and eleven podiatrists responded; 222 (71%) were female, 158 (51%) from the public sector and 11–15 years median experience. Participants reported treating a median of 21–30 diabetes patients each week, including 1–5 with foot ulcers. Overall, participants registered median scores of at least “very often” (>6) in their use of most items covering best practice diabetic foot management. Notable exceptions were: “never” (1 (1 – 3)) using total contact casting, “sometimes” (4 (2 – 5)) performing an ankle brachial index, “sometimes” (4 (1 – 6)) using University of Texas Wound Classification System, and “sometimes” (4 (3 – 6) referring to specialist multi-disciplinary foot teams. Public sector podiatrists reported higher use or access on all those items compared to private sector podiatrists (p < 0.01). Conclusions This study provides the first baseline information on Australian podiatrists’ adherence to best practice diabetic foot guidelines. It appears podiatrists manage large caseloads of people with diabetes and are generally implementing best practice guidelines recommendations with some notable exceptions. Further studies are required to identify barriers to implementing these recommendations to ensure all Australians with diabetes have access to best practice care to prevent amputations.

The tired foot. The effects of physical activity, energy expenditure and sleep on the diabetic foot population

Background The most common pathway to development of diabetes foot ulcers is repetitive daily activity stress on the plantar surface of the neuropathic foot. Studies suggest an association between different diabetic foot complications and physical activity. However, to the best of the authors knowledge the steps/day and sleep patterns of people with diabetic foot ulcers has yet to be investigated. This observational study aims to investigate the physical activity and sleep patterns of three groups of adults with type 2 diabetes and different foot complications Methods Participants with type 2 diabetes were recruited into three groups: 1. those with no reported foot complications (DNIL), 2. those with diagnosis of neuropathy (DPN) and 3. those with a neuropathic ulcer (DFU). Exclusion criteria included peripheral arterial disease and mobility aid use. Participants wore a SenseWear Pro 3 Armband continuously for 7 days and completed an Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The Armband is a validated automated measure of activity (walking steps, average Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET), physical activity (>3 METs) duration), energy expenditure(kJ) (total and physical activity (>3 METs)) and sleep (duration). Data on age, sex, BMI, diabetes duration and HbA1c were also collected. Results Sixty-Six (14 DNIL, 22 DPN and 30 DFU's participants were recruited; 71% males, mean age 61(±12) years, diabetes duration 13(±9) years, HbA1c 8.3(±2.8), BMI 32.6(±5.9), average METs 1.2(0.2). Significant differences were reported in mean(SD) steps/day (5,859(±2,381) in DNIL; 5,007(±3,349) in DPN and 3,271(±2,417) in DFU's and daily energy expenditure (10,868(±1,307)kJ in DNIL; 11,060(±1,916)kJ in DPN and 13,006(± 3,559) in DFU's(p <0.05). No significant differences were reported for average METs, physical activity duration or energy expenditure, sleep time or Epworth score (p>0.1). Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest people with diabetes are sedentary. Results indicate that patients with a diabetic foot ulcer work significantly less than those with neuropathy or nil complications and use significantly more energy to do so. Sleep Parameters showed no differences. Recruitment is still on going.

Innovative telemedicine and mobile phone technology in the management of diabetic foot ulcers

Background Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a leading cause of diabetes-related hospitalisation and can be costly to manage without access to appropriate expert care. Within Queensland and indeed across many parts of Australia, there is an inequality in accessing specialist services for individuals with DFU. Recent National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) diabetic foot guidelines recommend remote expert consultation with digital imaging should be made available to people with DFU to improve their clinical outcomes. Telemedicine appears to show promise in improving access to diabetic foot specialist services; however diabetic foot telemedicine models to date have relied upon videoconferencing, store and forward technology and/or customised appliances to obtain digital imagery which all require either expensive infrastructure or a timed reply to the request for advice. Whilst mobile phone advice services have been used with success in general diabetes management and telehealth services have improved diabetic foot outcomes, the rapid emergence in the use of mobile phones has established a need to review the role that various forms of telemedicine play in the management of DFU. The aim of this paper is to review traditional telemedicine modalities that have been used in the management of DFU and to compare that to new and innovative technology that are emerging. Process Studies investigating the management of DFU using various forms of telemedicine interventions will be included in this review. They include the use of videoconferencing technology, hand held digital still photography purpose built imaging devices and mobile phone imagery. Electronic databases (Pubmed, Medline and CINAHL) will be searched using broad MeSH terms and keywords that cover the intended area of interest. Findings It is anticipated that the results of this narrative review will provide delegates of the 2015 Australasian Podiatry Conference an insight into the types of emerging innovative diagnostic telemedicine technologies in the management of DFU against the backdrop of traditional and evidence based modalities. It is anticipated that the findings will drive further research in the area of mobile phone imagery and innovation in the management of DFU.

Social determinants of health and diabetic foot disease

Background Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is the leading cause of hospitalisation and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in people with diabetes. Many studies have established the relationship between DFD and clinical risk factors, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. Other studies have identified the relationship between diabetes and non-clinical risk factors termed social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status. However, it appears very few studies have investigated the relationship between DFD and SDoH. This paper aims to review the existing literature investigating the relationship between DFD and the SDoH factors socioeconomic status (SES), race and geographical remoteness (remoteness). Process Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed) were searched for studies reporting SES, race (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia) and remoteness and their relationship to DFD and LEA. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted in developing countries and studies published prior to 2000. Findings Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 10 in Australia. Overall, 28 (58%) studies investigated LEA, 10 (21%) DFD, and 10 (21%) DFD and LEA as the DFD-related outcome. Thirty-six (75%) studies investigated the SDoH risk factor of race, 22 (46%) SES, and 20 (42%) remoteness. SES, race and remoteness were found to be individually associated with LEA and DFD in the majority of studies. Only four studies investigated interactions between SES, race and remoteness and DFD with contrasting findings. All four studies used only LEA as their investigated outcome. No Australian studies investigate the interaction of all three SDoH risk factors on DFD outcomes. Conclusions The SDoH risk factors of SES, race and GR appear to be individually associated with DFD. However, only few studies investigated the interaction of these three major SDoH risk factors and DFD outcomes with contrasting results. There is a clear gap in this area of DFD research and particularly in Australia. Until urgent future research is performed, current practice and policy does not adequately take into consideration the implication of SDoH on DFD.

Corneal sensitivity as an ophthalmic marker of diabetic neuropathy

Purpose. The objective of this study was to explore the discriminative capacity of non-contact corneal esthesiometry (NCCE) when compared with the neuropathy disability score (NDS) score—a validated, standard method of diagnosing clinically significant diabetic neuropathy. Methods. Eighty-one participants with type 2 diabetes, no history of ocular disease, trauma, or surgery and no history of systemic disease that may affect the cornea were enrolled. Participants were ineligible if there was history of neuropathy due to non-diabetic cause or current diabetic foot ulcer or infection. Corneal sensitivity threshold was measured on the eye of dominant hand side at a distance of 10 mm from the center of the cornea using a stimulus duration of 0.9 s. The NDS was measured producing a score ranging from 0 to 10. To determine the optimal cutoff point of corneal sensitivity that identified the presence of neuropathy (diagnosed by NDS), the Youden index and “closest-to-(0,1)” criteria were used. Results. The receiver-operator characteristic curve for NCCE for the presence of neuropathy (NDS ≥3) had an area under the curve of 0.73 (p = 0.001) and, for the presence of moderate neuropathy (NDS ≥6), area of 0.71 (p = 0.003). By using the Youden index, for an NDS ≥3, the sensitivity of NCCE was 70% and specificity was 75%, and a corneal sensitivity threshold of 0.66 mbar or higher indicated the presence of neuropathy. When NDS ≥6 (indicating risk of foot ulceration) was applied, the sensitivity was 52% with a specificity of 85%. Conclusions. NCCE is a sensitive test for the diagnosis of minimal and more advanced diabetic neuropathy and may serve as a useful surrogate marker for diabetic and perhaps other neuropathies.

Biomechanical characteristics of peripheral diabetic neuropathy : a systematic review and meta-analysis of findings from the gait cycle, muscle activity and dynamic barefoot plantar pressure

Background: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is an important cause of foot ulceration and limb loss. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of diabetic peripheral neuropathy on gait, dynamic electromyography and dynamic plantar pressures. Methods: Electronic databases were searched systematically for articles reporting the effect of diabetic peripheral neuropathy on gait, dynamic electromyography and plantar pressures. Searches were restricted to articles published between January 2000 and April 2012. Outcome measures assessed included spatiotemporal parameters, lower limb kinematics, kinetics, muscle activation and plantar pressure. Meta-analyses were carried out on all outcome measures reported by ≥3 studies. Findings: Sixteen studies were included consisting of 382 neuropathy participants, 216 diabetes controls without neuropathy and 207 healthy controls. Meta-analysis was performed on 11 gait variables. A high level of heterogeneity was noted between studies. Meta-analysis results suggested a longer stance time and moderately higher plantar pressures in diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients at the rearfoot, midfoot and forefoot compared to controls. Systematic review of studies suggested potential differences in the biomechanical characteristics (kinematics, kinetics, EMG) of diabetic neuropathy patients. However these findings were inconsistent and limited by small sample sizes.; Interpretation: Current evidence suggests that patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy have elevated plantar pressures and occupy a longer duration of time in the stance-phase during gait. Firm conclusions are hampered by the heterogeneity and small sample sizes of available studies. Interpretation: Current evidence suggests that patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy have elevated plantar pressures and occupy a longer duration of time in the stance-phase during gait. Firm conclusions are hampered by the heterogeneity and small sample sizes of available studies.

Is there a relationship between screening for diabetes related foot complications and limb amputation?

Background From the conservative estimates of registrants with the National Diabetes Supply Scheme, we will be soon passing 1.1 Million Australians affected by all types of diabetes. The diabetes complications of foot ulceration and amputation are costly to all. These costs can be reduced with appropriate prevention strategies, starting with identifying people at risk through primary care diabetic foot screening. Yet levels of diabetic foot screening in Australia are difficult to quantify. This presentation aims to report on foot screening rates as recorded in existing academic literature, national health surveys and national database reports. Methods Literature searches included diabetic foot screening that occurred in the primary care setting for populations over 2000 people from 2002 to 2014. Searches were performed using Medline and CINAHL as well as internet searches of Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries health databases. The focus is on type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults, and not gestational diabetes or children. The two primary outcome measures were foot -screening rates as a percentage of adult diabetic population and major lower limb amputation incidence rates from standardised OECD data. Results The most recent and accurate level for Australian population review was in the AUSDIAB (Australian Diabetes and lifestyle survey) from 2004. This survey reported screening in primary care to be as low as 50%. Countries such as the United Kingdom and United States of America have much higher reported rates of foot screening (67-86%) recorded using national databases and web based initiatives that involve patients and clinicians. By comparison major amputation rates for Australia were similar to the United Kingdom at 6.5 versus 5.1 per 100,000 population, but dis-similar to the United States of America at 17 per 100,000 population. Conclusions Australian rates of diabetic foot screening in primary care centres is ambiguous. There is no direct relationship between foot screening levels in a primary care environment and major lower limb amputation, based on national health survey's and OECD data. Uptake of national registers, incentives and web-based systems improve levels of diabetic foot assessment, which are the first steps to a healthier diabetic population.

Diagnostic values for skin temperature assessment to detect diabetes-related foot complications

Background Skin temperature assessment is a promising modality for early detection of diabetic foot problems, but its diagnostic value has not been studied. Our aims were to investigate the diagnostic value of different cutoff skin temperature values for detecting diabetes-related foot complications such as ulceration, infection, and Charcot foot and to determine urgency of treatment in case of diagnosed infection or a red-hot swollen foot. Materials and Methods The plantar foot surfaces of 54 patients with diabetes visiting the outpatient foot clinic were imaged with an infrared camera. Nine patients had complications requiring immediate treatment, 25 patients had complications requiring non-immediate treatment, and 20 patients had no complications requiring treatment. Average pixel temperature was calculated for six predefined spots and for the whole foot. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for different cutoff skin temperature values using clinical assessment as reference and defined the sensitivity and specificity for the most optimal cutoff temperature value. Mean temperature difference between feet was analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis tests. Results The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for detection of diabetes-related foot complications was a 2.2°C difference between contralateral spots (sensitivity, 76%; specificity, 40%). The most optimal cutoff skin temperature value for determining urgency of treatment was a 1.35°C difference between the mean temperature of the left and right foot (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 78%). Conclusions Detection of diabetes-related foot complications based on local skin temperature assessment is hindered by low diagnostic values. Mean temperature difference between two feet may be an adequate marker for determining urgency of treatment.

Prevention of foot ulcers in the at-risk patient with diabetes: A systematic review

Background Prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes is extremely important to help reduce the enormous burden of foot ulceration on both patient and health resources. A comprehensive analysis of reported interventions is not currently available, but is needed to better inform caregivers about effective prevention. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent first and recurrent foot ulcers in persons with diabetes who are at risk for ulceration. Methods The available medical scientific literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane database was searched for original research studies on preventative interventions. Both controlled and non-controlled studies were selected. Data from controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Results From the identified records, a total of 30 controlled studies (of which 19 RCTs) and another 44 non-controlled studies were assessed and described. Few controlled studies, of generally low to moderate quality, were identified on the prevention of a first foot ulcer. For the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers, multiple RCTs with low risk of bias show the benefit for the use of daily foot skin temperature measurements and consequent preventative actions, as well as for therapeutic footwear that demonstrates to relieve plantar pressure and that is worn by the patient. To prevent recurrence, some evidence exists for integrated foot care when it includes a combination of professional foot treatment, therapeutic footwear and patient education; for just a single session of patient education, no evidence exists. Surgical interventions can be effective in selected patients, but the evidence base is small. Conclusion The evidence base to support the use of specific self-management and footwear interventions for the prevention of recurrent plantar foot ulcers is quite strong, but is small for the use of other, sometimes widely applied, interventions and is practically nonexistent for the prevention of a first foot ulcer and non-plantar foot ulcer.

Prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: A summary guidance for daily practice 2015, based on the IWGDF Guidance Documents

In this 'Summary Guidance for Daily Practice', we describe the basic principles of prevention and management of foot problems in persons with diabetes. This summary is based on the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidance 2015. There are five key elements that underpin prevention of foot problems: (1) identification of the at-risk foot; (2) regular inspection and examination of the at-risk foot; (3) education of patient, family and healthcare providers; (4) routine wearing of appropriate footwear, and; (5) treatment of pre-ulcerative signs. Healthcare providers should follow a standardized and consistent strategy for evaluating a foot wound, as this will guide further evaluation and therapy. The following items must be addressed: type, cause, site and depth, and signs of infection. There are seven key elements that underpin ulcer treatment: (1) relief of pressure and protection of the ulcer; (2) restoration of skin perfusion; (3) treatment of infection; (4) metabolic control and treatment of co-morbidity; (5) local wound care; (6) education for patient and relatives, and; (7) prevention of recurrence. Finally, successful efforts to prevent and manage foot problems in diabetes depend upon a well-organized team, using a holistic approach in which the ulcer is seen as a sign of multi-organ disease, and integrating the various disciplines involved.

Assessment of signs of foot infection in diabetes patients using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography

Background Patients with diabetic foot disease require frequent screening to prevent complications and may be helped through telemedical home monitoring. Within this context, the goal was to determine the validity and reliability of assessing diabetic foot infection using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography. Subjects and Methods For 38 patients with diabetes who presented with a foot infection or were admitted to the hospital with a foot-related complication, photographs of the plantar foot surface using a photographic imaging device and temperature data from six plantar regions using an infrared thermometer were obtained. A temperature difference between feet of > 2.2 °C defined a ''hotspot.'' Two independent observers assessed each foot for presence of foot infection, both live (using the Perfusion-Extent-Depth- Infection-Sensation classification) and from photographs 2 and 4 weeks later (for presence of erythema and ulcers). Agreement in diagnosis between live assessment and (the combination of ) photographic assessment and temperature recordings was calculated. Results Diagnosis of infection from photographs was specific (> 85%) but not very sensitive (< 60%). Diagnosis based on hotspots present was sensitive (> 90%) but not very specific (<25%). Diagnosis based on the combination of photographic and temperature assessments was both sensitive (> 60%) and specific (> 79%). Intra-observer agreement between photographic assessments was good (Cohen's j = 0.77 and 0.52 for both observers). Conclusions Diagnosis of foot infection in patients with diabetes seems valid and reliable using photographic imaging in combination with infrared thermography. This supports the intended use of these modalities for the home monitoring of high-risk patients with diabetes to facilitate early diagnosis of signs of foot infection.

The 2015 IWGDF guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes: Development of an evidence-based global consensus

Foot problems complicating diabetes are a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based, internationally appropriate diabetic foot care guidance is likely among the most cost-effective forms of healthcare expenditure, provided it is goal-focused and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing and updating international Practical Guidelines since 1999. The 2015 updates are based on systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations are formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. As such, we changed the name from 'Practical Guidelines' to 'Guidance'. In this article we describe the development of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance documents on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. This Guidance consists of five documents, prepared by five working groups of international experts. These documents provide guidance related to foot complications in persons with diabetes on: prevention; footwear and offloading; peripheral artery disease; infections; and, wound healing interventions. Based on these five documents, the IWGDF Editorial Board produced a summary guidance for daily practice. The resultant of this process, after reviewed by the Editorial Board and by international IWGDF members of all documents, is an evidence-based global consensus on prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes. Plans are already under way to implement this Guidance. We believe that following the recommendations of the 2015 IWGDF Guidance will almost certainly result in improved management of foot problems in persons with diabetes and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the tragedies caused by these foot problems.