Inter-observer agreement of the Wagner, University of Texas and PEDIS classification systems for the diabetic foot syndrome

Russell

Boyko

et al. 2020

216

277

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing evidence‐based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This publication represents a new guideline addressing the use of classifications of diabetic foot ulcers in routine clinical practice and reviews those which have been published. We only consider systems of classification used for active diabetic foot ulcers and do not include those that might be used to define risk of future ulceration. The guidelines are based on a review of the available literature and on expert opinion leading to the identification of eight key factors judged to contribute most to clinical outcomes. Classifications are graded on the number of key factors included as well as on internal and external validation and the use for which a classification is intended. Key factors judged to contribute to the scoring of classifications are of three types: patient related (end‐stage renal failure), limb‐related (peripheral artery disease and loss of protective sensation), and ulcer‐related (area, depth, site, single, or multiple and infection). Particular systems considered for each of the following five clinical situations: (a) communication among health professionals, (b) predicting the outcome of an individual ulcer, (c) as an aid to clinical decision‐making for an individual case, (d) assessment of a wound, with/without infection, and peripheral artery disease (assessment of perfusion and potential benefit from revascularisation), and (d) audit of outcome in local, regional, or national populations. We recommend: (a) for communication among health professionals the use of the SINBAD system (that includes Site, Ischaemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection and Depth); (b) no existing classification for predicting outcome of an individual ulcer; (c) the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF (IDSA/IWGDF) classification for assessment of infection; (d) the WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection) system for the assessment of perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularisation; and (e) the SINBAD classification for the audit of outcome of populations.

Section: Recommendations and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines on the classification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019)

Russell

Boyko

et al. 2020

216

277

“…Although it only has four grades, the description of each is complex. One study validated this classification for hospitalization and LEA, one for LEA (total and major), and another for LEA (minor and major) prediction . Higher risk of LEA was observed in all studies with increasing severity of infection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Measures of agreement were described in two studies. Bravo‐Molina et al showed a κ coefficient of 0.574, and Hazenberg et al of 0.44, both indicating moderate agreement between raters who evaluated the same ulcers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A reliability assessment by Bravo‐Molina et al presented a κ value of 0.513, indicating moderate agreement between raters assessing the same ulcers . According to Forsythe et al, this classification has a reliability comparable with PEDIS and SINDAD …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite its weaknesses, there have been a number of studies that report an association between grade and LEA, and accuracy measures have also been published (see Table S2). Regarding reliability assessment, Bravo‐Molina et al reported a κ coefficient of 0.55, indicating a moderate level of agreement between raters who evaluated the same ulcers …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diabetic foot ulcer classifications: A critical review

Boyko

Jeffcoate

et al. 2020

115

117

Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit outcomes of routine care. The aim of this study was to assess published systems of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to determine which should be recommended for a given clinical purpose. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of > 75% people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. Each study was assessed for internal and external validity and reliability. Eight key factors associated with failure to heal were identified from large clinical series and each classification was scored on the number of these key factors included. Classifications were then arranged according to their proposed purpose into one or more of four groups: (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) aid clinical management decision making for an individual case, and (d) audit to compare outcome in different populations. Thirty‐seven classification systems were identified of which 18 were excluded for not being validated in a population of >75% DFUs. The included 19 classifications had different purposes and were derived from different populations. Only six were developed in multicentre studies, just 13 were externally validated, and very few had evaluated reliability.Classifications varied in the number (4 ‐ 30), and definition of individual items and the diagnostic tools required. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer‐free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalization, limb amputation, mortality, and cost. Despite the limitations, there was sufficient evidence to make recommendations on the use of particular classifications for the indications listed above.

Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: A systematic review

Hamilton

Russell

et al. 2023

BackgroundClassification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit the outcomes of routine care.AimThis study aimed to assess published systems used to characterise ulcers in people with diabetes to determine which should be recommended to (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) characterise people with infection and/or peripheral arterial disease, and (d) audit to compare outcomes in different populations. This systematic review is part of the process of developing the 2023 guidelines to classify foot ulcers from the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published up to December 2021 which evaluated the association, accuracy or reliability of systems used to classify ulcers in people with diabetes. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of >80% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.ResultsWe found 28 systems addressed in 149 studies. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for each classification was low or very low, with 19 (68%) of the classifications being assessed by ≤ 3 studies. The most frequently validated system was the one from Meggitt‐Wagner, but the articles validating this system focused mainly on the association between the different grades and amputation. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer‐free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalisation, limb amputation, mortality, and cost.ConclusionDespite the limitations, this systematic review provided sufficient evidence to support recommendations on the use of six particular systems in specific clinical scenarios.