Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The foot in diabetes - a reminder of an ever-present risk

Craus S., Mula A., Coppini DV.

Narrative Review on Ankle Injury, Diabetic Foot, published in Clin Med (Lond) (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Clin Med (Lond) (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37197806
PMCID
PMC11046562
DOI
10.7861/clinmed2022-0489
Citations
7

Abstract (original English)

The term 'diabetic foot disease' (DFD) often signifies the presence of foot ulceration and infection, but one must also be wary of the rarer occurrence of Charcot foot disease. The worldwide prevalence of DFD is 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4-7.3%). Foot complications present a major challenge to both patients and healthcare systems, with increased rates of hospitalisation and an almost trebled 5-year mortality. The Charcot foot often occurs in patients with long-standing diabetes, presenting as an inflamed or swollen foot or ankle, following unrecognised minor trauma. This review focuses on the prevention and early identification of the 'at-risk' foot. DFD is best managed by a multi-disciplinary foot clinic team consisting of podiatrists and healthcare professionals. This ensures a combination of expertise and provision of a multi-faceted evidence-based treatment plan. Current research using endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) offers a new dimension in wound management.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
FootHumansFoot DiseasesDiabetic FootDiabetes MellitusHospitalizationRisk Assessment

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research