Ethnic groups had significantly different risk of lower limb amputation, even after adjusting for demographic and some major clinical risk factors. Barriers to care should be addressed and intensive prevention strategies known to reduce the incidence of lower limb amputations could be prioritized to those at greatest risk.

Aim No studies have investigated if national guidelines to manage diabetic foot disease differ from international guidelines. This study aimed to compare guidelines of Western Pacific nations with the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidance documents. Methods The 77 recommendations in five chapters of the 2015 IWGDF guidance documents were used as the international gold standard reference. The IWGDF national representative(s) from 12 Western Pacific nations were invited to submit their nation's diabetic foot guideline(s). Four investigators rated information in the national guidelines as “similar,” “partially similar,” “not similar,” or “different” when compared with IWGDF recommendations. National representative(s) reviewed findings. Disagreements in ratings were discussed until consensus agreement achieved. Results Eight of 12 nations (67%) responded: Australia, China, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Thailand provided national guidelines; Singapore provided the Association of Southeast Asian Nations guidelines; and Hong Kong and the Philippines advised no formal national diabetic foot guidelines existed. The six national guidelines included were 39% similar/partially similar, 58% not similar, and 2% different compared with the IWGDF recommendations. Within individual IWGDF chapters, the six national guidelines were similar/partially similar with 53% of recommendations for the IWGDF prevention chapter, 42% for wound healing, 40% for infection, 40% for peripheral artery disease, and 20% for offloading. Conclusions National diabetic foot disease guidelines from a large and diverse region of the world showed limited similarity to recommendations made by international guidelines. Differences between recommendations may contribute to differences in national diabetic foot disease outcomes and burdens.

Background The aim of this bibliometric study was to examine trends in the quality and quantity of published diabetes-related foot disease (DRFD) research in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ) over the past five decades. Method In July 2021, the Scopus® database was searched for DRFD-related publications (1970–2020) using predetermined search and inclusion criteria. Bibliometric data were extracted from Scopus® and Journal Citation Reports. Retrieved bibliometric indicators were analysed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface and reported using descriptive statistics. Results Forty-seven DRFD-related articles were identified. The annual number of publications showed a significant upward trend increasing from one in 1988 to a peak of six in 2018 (P < 0.001). The majority of identified articles (n = 31, 66%) were published in the last decade (2011–2020). Basic/clinical research accounted for 87% (n = 41) of publications and 14 (30%) investigated the screening and/or prevention of DRFD. The average citation per article was 20.23 (range: 0–209) and the median impact factor was 4.31 (range, 1.82–79.32). Over a third of articles (36%) had an international authorship network. Funding was reported in 15 (32%) articles; 12 (26%) were supported by public national grants vs. three (6%) reporting industry-sponsorship. Conclusion DRFD articles authored by NZ researchers have increased over the past five decades. Despite NZ researchers having increased their global impact through collaborative networks, most of the research was classified as low-level evidence, with limited focus on Indigenous Māori and limited financial support and funding. Increased funding for interventional research is required to enable a higher level of evidence-based and practice-changing research to occur. With rates of diabetes-related amputations higher in Māori future research must focus on reducing inequalities in diabetes-related outcomes for Māori by specifically targeting the prevention and screening of DRFD in primary care settings in NZ.