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 use of offloading interventions to promote the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes and updates the previous IWGDF guideline. We followed the GRADE methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the 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. For healing a neuropathic plantar forefoot or midfoot ulcer in a person with diabetes, we recommend that a nonremovable knee‐high offloading device is the first choice of offloading treatment. A removable knee‐high and removable ankle‐high offloading device are to be considered as the second‐ and third‐choice offloading treatment, respectively, if contraindications or patient intolerance to nonremovable offloading exist. Appropriately, fitting footwear combined with felted foam can be considered as the fourth‐choice offloading treatment. If non‐surgical offloading fails, we recommend to consider surgical offloading interventions for healing metatarsal head and digital ulcers. We have added new recommendations for the use of offloading treatment for healing ulcers that are complicated with infection or ischaemia and for healing plantar heel ulcers. Offloading is arguably the most important of multiple interventions needed to heal a neuropathic plantar foot ulcer in a person with diabetes. Following these recommendations will help health care professionals and teams provide better care for diabetic patients who have a foot ulcer and are at risk for infection, hospitalization, and amputation.

Background Offloading interventions are commonly used in clinical practice to heal foot ulcers. The aim of this updated systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of offloading interventions to heal diabetic foot ulcers. Methods We updated our previous systematic review search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to also include original studies published between July 29, 2014 and August 13, 2018 relating to four offloading intervention categories in populations with diabetic foot ulcers: (a) offloading devices, (b) footwear, (c) other offloading techniques, and (d) surgical offloading techniques. Outcomes included ulcer healing, plantar pressure, ambulatory activity, adherence, adverse events, patient‐reported measures, and cost‐effectiveness. Included controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality and had key data extracted into evidence and risk of bias tables. Included non‐controlled studies were summarised on a narrative basis. Results We identified 41 studies from our updated search for a total of 165 included studies. Six included studies were meta‐analyses, 26 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 13 other controlled studies, and 120 non‐controlled studies. Five meta‐analyses and 12 RCTs provided high‐quality evidence for non‐removable knee‐high offloading devices being more effective than removable offloading devices and therapeutic footwear for healing plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Total contact casts (TCCs) and non‐removable knee‐high walkers were shown to be equally effective. Moderate‐quality evidence exists for removable knee‐high and ankle‐high offloading devices being equally effective in healing, but knee‐high devices have a larger effect on reducing plantar pressure and ambulatory activity. Low‐quality evidence exists for the use of felted foam and surgical offloading to promote healing of plantar forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Very limited evidence exists for the efficacy of any offloading intervention for healing plantar heel ulcers, non‐plantar ulcers, and neuropathic ulcers with infection or ischemia. Conclusion Strong evidence supports the use of non‐removable knee‐high offloading devices (either TCC or non‐removable walker) as the first‐choice offloading intervention for healing plantar neuropathic forefoot and midfoot ulcers. Removable offloading devices, either knee‐high or ankle‐high, are preferred as second choice over other offloading interventions. The evidence bases to support any other offloading intervention is still weak and more high‐quality controlled studies are needed in these areas.

OBJECTIVETo promote foot screening of inpatients with diabetes, we simplified sensory testing to lightly touching the tips of the first, third, and fifth toes (the Ipswich Touch Test [IpTT]).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSRespective performances of the IpTT and 10-g monofilament (MF) were compared with a vibration perception threshold of ≥25 V indicating at-risk feet in 265 individuals. The IpTT and MF were also directly compared.RESULTSWith ≥2 of 6 insensate areas signifying at-risk feet, sensitivities and specificities, respectively, were IpTT (77 and 90%), MF (81 and 91%); positive predictive values were IpTT (89%), MF (91%); and negative predictive values were IpTT (77%), MF (81%). Directly compared, agreement between the IpTT and MF was almost perfect (κ = 0.88, P < 0.0001). Interrater agreement for the IpTT was substantial (κ = 0.68).CONCLUSIONSThe IpTT performs well against a recognized standard for ulcer prediction. Simple to teach, reliable, without expense, and always at hand, it should encourage uptake of screening and detection of high-risk inpatients requiring foot protection.