Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetic foot disease, and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease. This document describes these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research to facilitate clear communication between professionals.

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. Copyright

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with foot ulcers and diabetes and updates the previous IWGDF Guideline. Up to 50% of patients with diabetes and foot ulceration have concurrent PAD, which confers a significantly elevated risk of adverse limb events and cardiovascular disease. We know that the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of these patients are markedly different to patients with diabetes who do not have PAD and yet there are few good quality studies addressing this important subset of patients. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the patient‐intervention‐comparison‐outcome (PICO) format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical‐scientific literature, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where evidence was not available, and a weighing of the benefits and harms, patient preferences, feasibility and applicability, and costs related to the intervention. We here present the updated 2019 guidelines on diagnosis, prognosis, and management of PAD in patients with a foot ulcer and diabetes, and we suggest some key future topics of particular research interest.

Recommendations1. Examine a patient with diabetes annually for the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD); this should include, at a minimum, taking a history and palpating foot pulses. (GRADE strength of recommendation: strong; quality of evidence: low) 2. Evaluate a patient with diabetes and a foot ulcer for the presence of PAD.Determine, as part of this examination, ankle or pedal Doppler arterial waveforms; measure both ankle systolic pressure and systolic ankle brachial index (ABI). (strong; low) 3. We recommend the use of bedside non-invasive tests to exclude PAD. No single modality has been shown to be optimal. Measuring ABI (with <0.9 considered abnormal) is useful for the detection of PAD. Tests that largely exclude PAD are the presence of ABI 0.9-1.3, toe brachial index ≥0.75 and the presence of triphasic pedal Doppler arterial waveforms. (strong; low) 4. In patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes and PAD, no specific symptoms or signs of PAD reliably predict healing of the ulcer. However, one of the following simple bedside tests should be used to inform the patient and healthcare professional about the healing potential of the ulcer. Any of the following findings increases the pre-test probability of healing by at least 25%: a skin perfusion pressure ≥40 mmHg, a toe pressure ≥30 mmHg or a transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO 2 ) ≥25 mmHg. (strong; moderate) 5. Consider urgent vascular imaging and revascularisation in patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes where the toe pressure is <30 mmHg or the TcPO 2 <25 mmHg. (strong; low) 6. Consider vascular imaging and revascularisation in all patients with a foot ulcer in diabetes and PAD, irrespective of the results of bedside tests, when the ulcer does not improve within 6 weeks despite optimal management. (strong; low) 7. Diabetic microangiopathy should not be considered to be the cause of poor wound healing in patients with a foot ulcer. (strong; low) 8. In patients with a non-healing ulcer with either an ankle pressure <50 mmHg or ABI <0.5, consider urgent vascular imaging and revascularisation. (strong; moderate) 9. Colour Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography or intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography can each be used to obtain anatomical information when revascularisation is

DM2 patients, with and without DPN, have decreased maximal muscle strength in the lower limbs and impaired mobility. These abnormalities are associated with a loss of HR-QoL. The additional effect of moderate DPN was small in our patients.