Loading
Peripheral Artery Disease Management / Skin Diseases and Diabetes · Review
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews · August 31, 2026
Well-designed and adequately powered for the question it asks.
This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes 89 observational studies to establish pooled global incidence and prevalence estimates for diabetic foot disease complications. Global incidence rates are 10.93/1000 person-years for ulcerations, 3.58 for amputations, and 19.11 for infections; prevalence rates are 54.57/1000 persons for active ulcerations, 72.63 for past ulcerations, 14.75 for amputations, and 39.17 for infections. Substantial heterogeneity across studies reflects important differences by geography, methodology, and patient factors, highlighting the need for standardized epidemiological approaches.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (prospective cohorts, retrospective cohorts, and cross-sectional studies). Observational studies enrolling adults aged ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus reporting epidemiological measures of diabetic foot disease (ulcerations, amputations, infections); settings not further specified in abstract.. Intervention: Observational; no intervention applied. Epidemiological assessment of diabetic foot disease incidence and prevalence across studies using varying identification and data collection methods.. Global; 89 studies from Europe (N=29), Asia (N=25), Africa (N=16), America (N=16), and Oceania (N=3)..
Global incidence rate for diabetic foot ulcerations: 10.93 cases/1000 person-years (95% CI, 6.67–17.91) Global incidence rate for amputations: 3.58 cases/1000 person-years (95% CI, 1.93–6.63) Global incidence rate for infections: 19.11 cases/1000 person-years (95% CI, 4.81–75.97)
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
Clinicians and public health professionals can use these pooled estimates to understand the global burden of diabetic foot disease and appreciate substantial geographic variation. The wide confidence intervals and acknowledged heterogeneity suggest that local epidemiological data and standardized assessment methods are critical for accurate risk stratification and resource planning in specific settings.
Rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 89 observational studies with prespecified protocol and independent quality appraisal, providing pooled global epidemiological estimates of diabetic foot disease across multiple continents, though subject to substantial heterogeneity.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
Clinicians and public health professionals can use these pooled estimates to understand the global burden of diabetic foot disease and appreciate substantial geographic variation. The wide confidence intervals and acknowledged heterogeneity suggest that local epidemiological data and standardized assessment methods are critical for accurate risk stratification and resource planning in specific settings.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
ABSTRACT Introduction Diabetic foot (DF) disease, including ulcerations, amputations, and infections, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Despite their substantial clinical, social, and economic burden, robust global epidemiological estimates remain limited due to fragmented evidence and heterogeneous methodologies. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to provide reliable pooled estimates of incidence and prevalence of DF disease, to explore geographic and demographic variations, and to assess the types of data sources available for epidemiological research. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42025640944), PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to December 21, 2024, for observational studies in adults (≥ 18 years) with DM reporting epidemiological measures of DF disease. Data extraction and quality appraisal (Joanna Briggs Institute checklists) were independently performed by four reviewers. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were conducted using generalised linear mixed‐effects models to calculate pooled complication‐specific prevalence and incidence rates among patients with diabetes. Heterogeneity among study estimates was assessed using Cochran's Q test, I 2 statistic, and the between‐study variance ( τ 2 ). To identify sources of heterogeneity, meta‐regression analyses were performed considering study‐level covariates (modifiers). Results Eighty‐nine studies were included (18 prospective cohorts, 33 retrospective cohorts, 38 cross‐sectional), enrolling between 92 and 29,650,811 participants, with data from Europe ( N = 29, 32.6%), Asia ( N = 25, 28.1%), Africa ( N = 16, 18.0%), America ( N = 16, 18.0%), and Oceania ( N = 3, 3.4%). Pooled global incidence rates were 10.93 cases/1000 person‐years (95% CI, 6.67–17.91) for ulcerations, 3.58 (95% CI, 1.93–6.63) for amputations, and 19.11 (95% CI, 4.81–75.97) for infections. Pooled prevalence estimates were 54.57 cases/1000 persons (95% CI, 37.63–78.52) for active ulcerations, 72.63 (95% CI, 48.21–108.02) for past ulcerations, 14.75 (95% CI, 9.52–22.77) for amputations, and 39.17 (95% CI, 6.81–195.07) for infections. Substantial heterogeneity (I 2 > 90%) was observed, with significant modifiers including geographical region, diabetic foot identification method, data source, study setting, age, diabetes duration, and length of follow‐up. Rates in America and Africa were generally above the global pooled average, whereas those in Europe, Asia, and Oceania were below. Conclusions Globally, DF disease is common and severe, with incidence and prevalence rates underscoring its important public health impact. Heterogeneity across studies highlighted the influence of geography, methodology, and data sources. These findings may support future clinical and pharmacoepidemiological studies that evaluate new interventions and monitor temporal trends using large‐scale data.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.