Monitoring foot skin temperatures at home have been shown to be effective at preventing the occurrence of diabetic foot ulcers. In this study, the construct validity of using >2.2°C difference between contralateral areas on the foot as a warning sign of imminent ulceration is explored. Thirty participants with diabetes at high risk of ulceration (loss of protective sensation and previous ulceration and/or amputation) monitored their foot temperatures at six sites, four times a day for six days using a handheld infrared thermometer. Walking activity, time of day, and environmental temperature were also monitored and correlated with foot temperatures. We found that contralateral mean skin temperature difference was 0.78°C at baseline. At single sites, left-to-right temperature differences exceeding the threshold were found in 9.6% of measurements ( n = 365), which reduced to 0.4% when individually corrected and confirmed the next day. No correlation was found between contralateral temperature differences and activity, time of day, and environmental temperature. We conclude that using a >2.2°C difference is invalid as a single measurement in people at high risk of ulceration, but the construct validity is appropriate if both individual corrections and next day confirmation are applied.
Background: In an era of increasing technology and telehealth utilization, three-dimensional (3D) wound cameras promise reliable, rapid, and touch-free ulceration measurements. However, reliability data for commercially available devices in the diabetes foot service setting is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the reliability of diabetes-related foot ulceration measurement using a 3D wound camera in comparison to the routinely used ruler and probe. Method: Participants were prospectively recruited from a tertiary interdisciplinary diabetes foot service. Ulcerations were measured at each visit by two blinded observers, first by ruler and probe, and then using a 3D wound camera twice. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Measurement methods were compared by Pearson correlation. Results: Sixty-three ulcerations affecting 38 participants were measured over 122 visits. Interobserver reliability of ruler measurement was excellent for estimated area (ICC 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.98) and depth (ICC 0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.95). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the 3D wound camera area was excellent (ICC 0.96, 95%CI 0.95-0.97 and 0.97 95% CI 0.96-0.98, respectively). Depth was unrecordable in over half of 3D wound camera measurements, and reliability was inferior to probe measurement. Area correlation between methods was good ( R = 0.88 and 0.94 per observer); however, depth correlation was poor ( R = 0.49 and 0.65). Conclusions: 3D wound cameras offer practical advantages over ruler-based measurement. In diabetes-related foot ulceration, the reliability and comparability of area measurement was excellent across both methods, although depth was more reliably obtained by the probe. These limitations, together with cost, are important considerations if implementing this technology in diabetes foot care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.