Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Medicine ®

Knowledge mapping of diabetic foot research

based on Web of Science database
A bibliometric analysis
Xiao-Peng Zhao, PhDa,* , Da Li, MDa, Cui-Liu Li, MDa, Yun-Na Zhang, MDa, Nai-Rui Zhao, MDa, Jin-Xiu Xu, MDa

Abstract
Purpose: To take a systematic bibliometric analysis and generate the knowledge mapping of diabetic foot research, basing on
big data from Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database.
Methods: Two authors retrieved the WoSCC independently, to obtain publications in field of diabetic foot. CiteSpace was used
to detect the co-occurrence relationships of authors, keywords, institutions, and countries/regions, co-citation relationships of
authors, references, and journals, and distribution of WoS category.
Results: A total of 10,822 documents were included, with 39,541 authors contributed to this field. “Armstrong DG,” “Lavery LA,”
and “Lipsky BA” are the top 3 productive authors, and “Armstrong DG,” “Boulton AJM,” and “Lavery LA” were most commonly
cited. The United States, England and China are the most productive countries, and Univ Washington, Univ Manchester and
Harvard Univ published the largest quantity of articles. “Diabetes Care,” “Diabetic Med,” and “Diabetologia” are the most
frequently cited journals, providing the greatest knowledge base. Clustering analysis of keywords co-occurrence map presented
the following hotspots: #1 diabetic wound healing, #2 diabetic polyneuropathy, #3 plantar pressure, #4 diabetic foot infection, #5
endovascular treatment, and #6 hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Conclusion: This study performed a global overview of diabetic foot research using bibliometric and visualization methods,
which would provide helpful references for researchers focusing on this area to capture the future trend.
Abbreviations: DFU = diabetic foot ulcer, DM = diabetes mellitus, WoSCC = web of science core collection.
Keywords: bibliometric analysis, CiteSpace, diabetic foot, web of science

1. Introduction with DM, and the accumulated resultant amputations account

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has fast become a global pandemic
affecting almost 25% of the people worldwide.[1] China is fac-
ing the largest absolute burden of DM, with a total of esti-
mated 116 million adults suffering from the disease, which
accounts for about 25% of the patients globally.[2] DM is
associated with progressive development of many systematic
complications, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, diabetic foot
ulcer (DFU), and autonomic dysfunction, during the rest life-
span. Of these, the DFU is one of the most significant compli-
cations, which costs about $13,179 per episode, and a total of
$58 billion per year, in the United States.[3,4] The International
Diabetes Federation estimated that approximately 9.1 to 26.1
million patients with DM would develop into DFU per year
worldwide.[5] What more, the risk of DFU is estimated to be
as high as 15% to 25% during the lifetime among patients
for more than half of the non-traumatic lower limb amputa-
tions.[6,7] In recent years, plenty of guidelines on diagnosis and
therapeutic strategies of diabetic foot have been proposed.[8–23]
As reported in the systematic review of Sun et al,[8] a total of 22
clinical practice guidelines were available by year of 2019. In
May 2019, the International Working Group on the Diabetic
Foot launched 7 guidelines describing the basic principles of
prevention, classification, and treatment of diabetic foot dis-
ease.[9–15] To protect the feet of patients living with DM, it is
essential to improve the knowledge about self-management
of foot care. Nearly half of the amputations in patients with
DM could be prevented with multi-disciplinary approaches of
wound care.[24,25]
However, the rapid growth on the volume of publications
has brought big data on the topic of diabetic foot, causing
apparent difficulty on grasping the emerging trends and

This work was supported by the Key Research and Development Program
Guidance Project of Cangzhou City (213106005).
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article.
a
Department II of Endocrine & Diabetes, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Cangzhou
City, Hebei Province, China.
*Correspondence: Xiao-Peng Zhao, Department II of Endocrine & Diabetes,
Cangzhou Central Hospital, No. 201, Xinhua Middle Road, Yunhe District,
Cangzhou City, 061000, Hebei Province, China (e-mail: xiaopengzhao2022@
yeah.net).
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is
permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided
it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission
from the journal.
How to cite this article: Zhao X-P, Li D, Li C-L, Zhang Y-N, Zhao N-R, Xu J-X.
Knowledge mapping of diabetic foot research based on Web of Science
database: A bibliometric analysis. Medicine 2023;102:26(e34053).
Received: 6 April 2023 / Received in final form: 30 May 2023 / Accepted: 31 May
2023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034053

1
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26Medicine
research hotspots. Traditional reviews, however, are limited
on completely and systematically displaying the knowledge
mapping of the topic. Another big data processing technique,
that is, bibliometric analysis, provides a novel tool for ana-
lyzing the published scientific literature.[26] Bibliometrics can
be used not only for quantitatively and qualitatively analyz-
ing the contribution and cooperation of the authors, journals,
institutions, and countries, but also for identifying the devel-
opment trends and hotspots in a special topic.[27] Thus, the
current study was designed to take a systematic bibliometric
analysis and generate the knowledge mapping of diabetic foot
research, utilizing the CiteSpace software developed by Prof
Chaomei Chen.[28]
2. Methods
2.1. Data source and retrieving process
As the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database
could provide more comprehensive citation information and
mainly accepts high-quality research around the world, it has
been widely selected in previous bibliometric studies.[27,29,30] In
our study, 2 individual authors searched the WoSCC database
independently, with the following searching strategy: “TOPIC:
Diabetic Foot” OR “TOPIC: Foot, Diabetic” OR “TOPIC:
Diabetic Feet” OR “TOPIC: Feet, Diabetic” OR “TOPIC:
Foot Ulcer, Diabetic” OR “TOPIC: Diabetic Foot Ulcer” OR
“TOPIC: DFU.” The database was retrieved on June 20th, 2021,
with timespan from the inception date to the retrieving date.
The publication language was restricted in English.
2.2. Records screening
The records retrieved in WoSCC were exported with the record
content of “Full Record and Cited References” and the file format
of “Plain Text.” Five hundred records were exported and saved
each time, and the files were renamed as “download_*.txt” to fit
the recognition of CiteSpace software. Then, the saved files were
imported into CiteSpace to automatically screen the records.
Duplicates would be checked out and removed, and only the arti-
cle types of “Article” and “Review” were eligible for inclusion.
The screening process was conducted by 2 individual authors,
and disagreements were resolved by the third senior author.
2.3. Data analysis and visualization
The annual publication trend was depicted with barplot using
R version 4.0.3 (Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Figure 1. The flowchart of study searching and screening (A), and the global annual distribution of publications.
2
Austria). CiteSpace version 5.7.R5 was used to detect the co-oc-
currence relationships of authors, keywords, institutions, and
countries/regions, co-citation relationships of authors, refer-
ences, and journals, and distribution of WoS category. The
CiteSpace settings were as follows: time span (1998–2021),
years per slice (1 year), pruning (Minimum Spanning Tree and
Pruning Sliced Networks), selection criteria (Top N = 50), and
others followed the default. Clustering analyses were performed
for co-occurrence relationships of authors and keywords, and
co-citation relationships of authors and references. Additionally,
the timeline plot was generated to display the evolution of each
cluster and interactions among various clusters. The top 25 key-
words and top 25 references with the strongest citation bursts
were explored and graphically displayed. The dual-map over-
lay of journals was generated to depict the citation relationship
between citing journals and cited journals. Finally, the annual
citation volume of journal “Diabetes Care” was also analyzed
and displayed with line-chart. All of the plots were colored with
a same palette, which consisted of different gradations of grays
for years of 1998 to 2011 and 10 chromatic colors for the latest
10 years (2012–2021).
2.4. Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval was not essential as all included data were
obtained from published articles.
2.5. Patient and public involvement
This bibliometric analysis was performed using previously pub-
lished data, thus no patient and public content was included in
this study.
3. Results
3.1. Study retrieving and annual distribution of publications
A total of 13,111 research documents were initially identified
through database searching, and no duplicate document was
screened out. Then, 10,822 articles (n = 9354) or reviews (n =
1468) were remained for analyses, while the other 2289 docu-
ments (51 correction; 383 editorial material; 280 letter; 1532
meeting abstract; 35 news item; 8 reprint) were discarded.
The flowchart of study searching and screening is shown in
Figure 1A.
The annual distribution of publications is available in
Figure 1B. The annual publication volume is steadily increas-
ing, with an average annual output of 447 articles between
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26www.md-journal.com

1998 and 2020. The yearly output at 2020 is more than 5 times
than that at 1998. Due to the retrieving date was June 20th,
2021, the annual publication volume in 2021 is significantly
decreased.
3.2. Co-occurrence and co-citation relationships of authors
A total of 39,541 authors participated in the topic of “dia-
betic foot” according to the intrinsic function of WoSCC.
The merged network of authors co-occurrence is available in
Figure 2A. The authors with occurrence frequency of more
than 20 times are listed in Supplementary Table S1, http://links.
lww.com/MD/J167. As a result, the top 3 productive authors
include “David G Armstrong” (Freq = 131), “Lawrence A
Lavery” (n = 81) and “Benjamin A Lipsky” (n = 79). Their
first publications were all accepted by WoSCC at 2006, and
most of their outputs were published at the recent 10 years
(growth rings with chromatic colors). The clustering plot and
the timeline plot for each cluster for the author co-concur-
rence relationship is available in Figure 2B and C. Generally,
the clusters of “#diabetic foot ulcer,” “#guidelines,” “#periph-
eral arterial disease” and “#ultrasound indentation” are
the hotspots in recent years, while few articles in areas of
“#smooth muscle cell,” “#home monitoring,” “#deformity,”
and “#sudomotor dysfunction” have been published in recent
5 years.

Figure 2. The merged network plot (A), clustering plot (B), and timeline plot of each cluster (C) for author co-occurrence relationship, and the merged network
plot (D), clustering plot (E), and timeline plot of each cluster (F) for author co-citation relationship. Each node represents a contribution author or a co-cited
author, and the node size and width of growth ring indicate the accumulated amount and annual amount of articles published by the author or co-cited for the
author respectively. The link between 2 nodes represents the cooperation or co-citation, and the thickness of the link indicate the degree of cooperation or
co-citation between authors. A total of 16 major clusters within the network of author co-occurrence were figured out (B&C), with the following cluster labels:
diabetic foot ulcer; guidelines; smooth muscle cell; peripheral arterial disease; ultrasound indentation; wound healing; peripheral arterial occlusive disease;
wound; diabetic neuropathy; home monitoring; instrumentation; minor amputation; deformity; evidence-based care; sudomotor dysfunction; michigan neuropa-
thy screening instrument. In the network of author co-citation (E&F), a total of 11 major clusters were figured out, including: wound healing; diabetic foot; diabetic
foot infection; plantar pressure; peripheral arterial disease; diabetic neuropathy; charcot foot; negative pressure wound therapy; biofilm formation; complicated
skin; and diabetic nephropathy.

3
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26Medicine
The network for author co-citation relationship is available
in Figure 2D, and Supplementary Table S2, http://links.lww.
com/MD/J168 lists the authors cited for more than 500 times.
As a result, the top 3 most frequently cited authors include
“Armstrong DG” (Freq = 2072), “Boulton AJM” (Freq = 2059)
and “Boulton AJM” (Freq = 1536). A total of 11 major clus-
ters were figured out (Fig. 2E). Generally, apart from the last
3 clusters, all of the other 8 areas were continuously cited and
discussed in the diabetic foot related research, according to the
timeline plot in Figure 2F. Simultaneously, there were very fre-
quent co-citations across various clusters.
3.3. Co-occurrence relationships of keywords
The network plot for co-occurrence relationship of keywords is
shown in Supplementary Figure S1A, http://links.lww.com/MD/
J169, and the keywords arose for more than 500 times are listed
in Supplementary Table S3, http://links.lww.com/MD/J170.
The top 3 keywords most frequently appeared are “diabetic
foot” (Freq = 1887), “diabetic foot ulcer” (Freq = 1624) and
“management” (Freq = 1416). A total of 7 major clusters were
found (Supplementary Figure S1B, http://links.lww.com/MD/
J169). According to the timeline plot in Supplementary Figure
S1C, http://links.lww.com/MD/J169, all of the clusters are con-
tinuously evolving apart from the cluster #tasc ii. The top 25
keywords with the strongest occurrence bursts are displayed in
Supplementary Figure S1D, http://links.lww.com/MD/J169.
3.4. Co-citation relationships of references
The network plot of co-citation relationship of references is
presented in Figure 3A. The top 3 references with the most fre-
quent citation include Lipsky BA et al (Journal: CLIN INFECT
DIS; Freq: 433; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis346), Armstrong DG et
al (Journal: NEW ENGL J MED; Freq: 406; DOI: 10.1056/
Figure 3. The merged network plot (A), clustering plot (B), timeline plot of each cluster (C), and for burst test plot (D) for reference co-citation relationship. The
node size and link thickness represent the citation frequency of references and co-citation strength between references, respectively. A total of 11 clusters were
detected through clustering analysis, including: #diabetic neuropathy; #peripheral arterial disease; #osteomyelitis; #plantar pressure; #wound healing; #foot
infection; #humans; #critical limb ischemia; #wound healing; #multicentre; and #three dimensional.
4
NEJMra1615439) and Singh N et al (Journal: JAMA; Freq: 309;
DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.2.217) (Supplementary Table S4, http://
links.lww.com/MD/J171). A total of 11 clusters were detected
through clustering analysis (Fig. 3B). A timeline plot showing the
historical evolving of each cluster is shown in Figure 3C, demon-
strating that clusters of #peripheral artery disease, #osteomyelitis,
#plantar pressure, #wound healing, #humans, and #critical limb
ischemia are the hotspots that have been frequently cited in recent
ten years. After that, we figured out the top 25 references with the
strongest citation bursts, as that are listed in Figure 3D.
3.5. Co-operation relationships of countries/regions and
institutions
A total of 116 countries/regions and 11,086 institutions were
involved in the diabetic foot research. The cooperation net-
works among countries/regions and institutions are available in
Figure 4A and Figure 4B, and countries/regions with more than
100 publications and institutions with more than 50 publica-
tions are listed in Supplementary Table S5&S6, http://links.lww.
com/MD/J172, respectively. USA (Freq = 3408), England (Freq =
1064) and China (Freq = 970) are the top-3 countries that mostly
contributed to the diabetic foot research. Additionally, there is
an obvious elevation on the output in this area in the recent ten
years. Univ Washington (Freq = 198), Univ Manchester (Freq =
166) and Harvard Univ (Freq = 131) are the top-3 institutions
that mostly contributed to the area. There is strong cooperation
among various countries/regions and institutions.
3.6. Co-citation relationships and dual-map overlay of
journals
The network plot for co-citation relationships of journals is
presented in Figure 4C. Supplementary Table S7, http://links.
lww.com/MD/J173 lists the journals cited for more than 1000
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26www.md-journal.com

Figure 4. The merged cooperation network plots among different countries/regions (A) and institutions (B), the network plot for co-citation relationships of
journals (C), the annual evolving trend of citation for journal “Diabetes Care” (D), and the dual-map overlay of journals displaying the relationships between citing
and cited journals (E). In parts A&B, node size and link thickness represent the outputs volume and co-operation strength of countries/regions or institutions,
respectively, while in part C, node size and link thickness represent the citation frequency and co-citation strength of journals, respectively. In part E, the citing
journals were located on the left while the cited journals were on the right, and the colored paths indicated the citation relationships.

times in this area. As a result, “Diabetes Care” (Freq = 7095),
“Diabetic Med” (Freq = 4475), and “Diabetologia” (Freq =
3558) are the top-3 most frequently cited journals. Figure 4D
depicts the annual evolving trend of citation for journal
“Diabetes Care,” showing an stable rising on the annual cita-
tion volume. The dual-map overlay of journals displaying the
relationships between citing and cited journals is presented
in Figure 4E. Four primary citation paths colored orange
and green were identified, showing that studies published
in Molecular/Biology/Immunology journals and Medicine/
Medical/Clinical journals were both mainly cited by the studies
published in Molecular/Biology/Genetics journals and Health/
Nursing/Medicine journals.
3.7. Co-occurrence relationships of WoS categories
The network plot for co-occurrence relationships of WoS cate-
gories is available in Supplementary Figure S2, http://links.lww.
com/MD/J174. A total of 77 WoS categories were figured out,
and the WoS categories with more than 100 articles are listed
in Supplementary Table S8, http://links.lww.com/MD/J175. In

5
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26Medicine
the research area of diabetic foot, “Surgery,” “Endocrinology &
Metabolism,” and “Dermatology” were the top-3 main domains.
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary
Global burden of diabetes has increased along with the sharp
increasing on the number and expanding of the life expectancy
of DM patients.[1–4] DFUs are associated with additional mor-
bidity for the DM patients, with high risks of infection and
major amputation, and increased mortality.[31] Thus, early iden-
tification and attentive care of DFUs are critical for improving
the outcomes, and nearly half of the amputations could be pre-
vented.[24,25] This study demonstrated obvious growth on the
yearly output in this area, with more than 5 folds of publica-
tions in 2020 compared to that in 1998. The bursting of studies
in this field started at 1998, with only 160 publications before
1998. We conducted a bibliometric analysis based on big data
in the area of diabetic foot from WoSCC database, and provided
a knowledge mapping of the development history and emerging
trends.
4.2. Knowledge mapping and research hotspots
In this study, we figured out the most productive authors, insti-
tutions and countries/regions, and revealed the cooperation
network among them. Highlighting the most productive con-
tributors can help scholars move along the road and provide fur-
ther directions and guidelines.[32] In our results (Supplementary
Table S1, http://links.lww.com/MD/J167&S2, http://links.lww.
com/MD/J168), we surprisingly found that the top 5 produc-
tive authors (AJMB, DGA, AV, LAL, and BAL) were part of the
top 10 co-cited authors simultaneously. The United States and
England contributed mostly in this field with very early begin-
ning period (see the gray rings of the node in Fig. 4A), indicat-
ing that they are the major pioneer countries focusing on the
diabetic foot research. Chinese authors started to make signif-
icant contribution in this field latter but has emerged as one of
the most productive contributors in recent ten years (see the
chromatically colored rings), with an accumulated output just
following USA and England. Thus, as shown in Supplementary
Table S5, http://links.lww.com/MD/J172, China presented with
the highest burst, while USA and England presented with the
highest centrality.
In Supplementary Table S3, http://links.lww.com/MD/J170,
we listed the keywords most frequently arising in articles,
which could reflect the major domains that have been primarily
researched. By clustering analysis and timeline analysis, several
hotspots were identified, such as # diabetic wound healing, #
diabetic polyneuropathy, # plantar pressure, # diabetic foot
infection, # endovascular treatment, and # hyperbaric oxy-
gen therapy. These hotspots, indeed, have been continuously
and widely focused on by various research groups around the
world.[16–20,22,23,33] The International Working Group on the
Diabetic Foot has published a series of guidelines focusing on
various aspects of DFU, covering almost all clusters we figured
out, since 1999, and finally updated them in 2019.[33] They pro-
vided thorough clinical practical guidelines, regarding to the
prevention and management of diabetic foot disease,[13] preven-
tion of foot ulcers,[15] classification of DFUs,[12] wound healing
interventions,[14] diagnosis and treatment of foot infection,[11]
offloading,[10] and diagnosis, prognosis, and management of
peripheral artery disease.[9] According to the clustering analysis
of co-occurrence network of authors, several hot topics were
also detected, such as # diabetic foot ulcer, # guidelines, # periph-
eral arterial disease, # ultrasound indentation, # wound healing,
and # diabetic neuropathy, being similar with the focused topics
in the guidelines.
6
Co-citation relationships could reflect the knowledge base
of a special field.[29] In 2012, Lipsky et al[34] published the
most co-cited (Freq = 433) article, that is, the 2012 Infectious
Diseases Society of America guideline, in Clin Infect Dis. This
guideline, providing classification system for diabetic foot infec-
tions, could help determine which patients should be hospital-
ized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical
interventions, and which will require amputation, along with a
detailed assessing on vessels. In New Engl J Med, Armstrong et
al[5] published the article with the highest burst index (171.47)
and annual citation frequency (average: 101.5 times per year),
in 2017. The authors reviewed and summarized the risk factors
of recurrence of DFUs after primary healing, and the strategies
to maximize ulcer-free days for patients with a history of DFU,
in this study. The third most co-cited study (Freq = 309) is pub-
lished in JAMA in 2005 by Singh N et al,[35] which systematically
reviewed the evidence on the efficacy of methods advocated for
preventing DUFs in the primary care setting, and concluded that
all patients with diabetes should be screened to identify those
at risk for foot ulceration as these patients might benefit from
certain prophylactic interventions, including patient education,
prescription footwear, intensive podiatric care, and evaluation
for surgical interventions. Clustering analysis on these co-cited
references also found several major domains that have provide
knowledge base for the diabetic foot research, such as # periph-
eral artery disease, # osteomyelitis, # plantar pressure, # wound
healing, and # critical limb ischemia.
The co-cited journal analysis showed that journal “Diabetes
Care” contributed the greatest knowledge base for this field, with
a total of 7095 accumulated citations and continuously increas-
ing annual citations (Fig. 4C and D). In Supplementary Table S7,
http://links.lww.com/MD/J173, we listed the journals co-cited
for more than 1000 times. The dual-map overlay of journals
stands for the topic distribution of academic journals (Chen C
& Leydesdorff, 2001[36]). Four major citation paths were identi-
fied between the citing and cited journals. Generally, both basic
research (citing journals in “Molecular, Biology, Immunology”
topic and cited journals in “Molecular, Biology, Genetics” topic)
and translational clinical research (citing journals in “Medicine,
Medical, Clinical” topic and cited journals in “Health, Nursing,
Medicine” topic) in this field have been highly developed.
The pathogenesis of DFUs is quite complex, with multiple
factors contributing to the formation of ulceration, including
poor glycemic control, peripheral neuropathy, peripheral artery
disease.[37–39] The application of multidisciplinary health care is
crucial in maintaining and treatment for patients with DFUs[40];
Musuuza et al, 2000).[41] In the systematic review of Musuuza
J et al (2000),[41] it was found that in 94% of the reported
instances the application of multidisciplinary care team signifi-
cantly reduced the overall DFU-related amputations. In this study,
many different disciplines were demonstrated in the diabetic foot
filed, according to the co-occurrence of WoS categories. We found
that “Surgery,” “Endocrinology & metabolism,” “Dermatology,”
“Orthopedics,” and “General & internal medicine” are the top 5
specialties focusing on this field. With the combination of these
various disciplines, patients might obtain the maximal benefit.
4.3. Limitations
This study also comes with several inherent limitations.
Firstly, data were retrieved only in the WoSCC database, while
some studies in the related field would not be included in this
database. However, as the WoSCC database could provide
more professional and comprehensive citation information
and only accepts high-quality research, it has become the most
commonly applied database for bibliometric analysis.[27,29,42]
Secondly, due to the big data produced in this field, the
retrieved records were automatically screened by CiteSpace
software, which may inevitably causes potential bias on the
result.
Zhao et al. • Medicine (2023) 102:26www.md-journal.com
5. Conclusions
In summary, this bibliometric study systematically analyzed
the diabetic foot-related publications and provided the knowl-
edge mapping in this field. Additionally, we detected the major
hotspots and frontiers of the diabetic foot research, which may
be helpful for researchers focusing on this area to globally cap-
ture the future trend.
Author contributions
Data curation: Xiao-Peng Zhao, Da Li.
Formal analysis: Xiao-Peng Zhao.
Methodology: Xiao-Peng Zhao, Da Li, Cui-Liu Li.
Project administration: Xiao-Peng Zhao.
Software: Da Li, Cui-Liu Li.
Validation: Yun-Na Zhang, Nai-Rui Zhao.
Writing – original draft: Xiao-Peng Zhao, Da Li, Cui-Liu Li.
Writing – review & editing: Yun-Na Zhang, Nai-Rui Zhao, Jin-
Xiu Xu.
References
[1] Arumugam G, Manjula P, Paari, N. A review: anti-diabetic medicinal
plants used for diabetes mellitus. J Acute Dis. 2013;2:196–200.
[2] International Diabetes Federation. “IDF Diabetes Atlas, 9th ed.
Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation,” Available at:
http://www.diabetesatlas.org/, 2019.
[3] Stockl K, Vanderplas A, Tafesse E, et al. “Costs of lower-ex-
tremity ulcers among patients with diabetes”. Diabetes Care.
2004;27:2129–34.
[4] American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S.
In 2007. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:596–615.
[5] Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. “Diabetic foot ulcers and their
recurrence”. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2367–75.
[6] Chiwanga FS, Njelekela MA. “Diabetic foot: prevalence, knowledge,
and foot self-care practices among diabetic patients in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania - a cross-sectional study”. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8:20.
[7] Wu SC, Driver VR, Wrobel JS, et al. “Foot ulcers in the diabetic patient,
prevention and treatment”. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3:65–76.
[8] Sun Y, Gao Y, Chen J, et al. “Evidence mapping of recommendations on
diagnosis and therapeutic strategies for diabetes foot: an international
review of 22 guidelines”. Metabolism. 2019;100:153956.
[9] Hinchliffe RJ, Forsythe RO, Apelqvist J, et al. “Guidelines on diagno-
sis, prognosis, and management of peripheral artery disease in patients
with foot ulcers and diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)”. Diabetes Metab
Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3276.
[10] Bus SA, Armstrong DG, Gooday C, et al. “Guidelines on offloading
foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)”. Diabetes
Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3274.
[11] Lipsky BA, Senneville E, Abbas ZG, et al. “Guidelines on the diagnosis
and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019
update)”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3280.
[12] Monteiro-Soares M, Russell D, Boyko EJ, et al. “Guidelines on the clas-
sification of diabetic foot ulcers (IWGDF 2019)”. Diabetes Metab Res
Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3273.
[13] Schaper NC, van Netten JJ, Apelqvist J, et al. “Practical guidelines on
the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019
update)”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3266.
[14] Rayman G, Vas P, Dhatariya K, et al. “Guidelines on use of interven-
tions to enhance healing of chronic foot ulcers in diabetes (IWGDF
2019 update)”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3283.
[15] Bus SA, Lavery LA, Monteiro-Soares M, et al. “Guidelines on the pre-
vention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)”.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3269.
[16] van Netten JJ, Lazzarini PA, Armstrong DG, et al. “Diabetic Foot
Australia guideline on footwear for people with diabetes”. J Foot Ankle
Res 2018;11:2.
[17] Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, Grunberger G, et al. American associ-
ation of clinical endocrinologists and american college of endocrinology
- clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus compre-
hensive care plan - 2015. Endocr Pract. 2015;21(Suppl 1):1–87.
[18] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). “Diabetic
Foot Problems: Prevention and Management,” London (UK), 2015.
[19] Hingorani A, LaMuraglia GM, Henke P, et al. The management of
diabetic foot: a clinical practice guideline by the society for vascular
surgery in collaboration with the American podiatric medical associ-
ation and the society for vascular medicine. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(2
Suppl):3S–21S.
[20] Lavery LA, Davis KE, Berriman SJ, et al. “WHS guidelines update: diabetic
foot ulcer treatment guidelines”. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24:112–26.
[21] Huang ET, Mansouri J, Murad MH, et al. “A clinical practice guideline
for the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic
foot ulcers”. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2015;42:205–47.
[22] Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India
(MH&FWGI). “The diabetic foot prevention and management in
India”. 2016.
[23] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
“Prevention, Identification and Management of Foot Complications in
Diabetes,” Australia, 2017.
[24] Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, et al. “Practical criteria for screen-
ing patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration”. Arch Intern Med.
1998;158:157–62.
[25] Boulton AJ. “The diabetic foot”. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;43:33–e7.
[26] Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, AbuTaha AS, et al. “Bibliometric analysis of
worldwide scientific literature in mobile - health: 2006-2016”. BMC
Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17:72.
[27] Zhao T, Guo J, Song Y, et al. “A bibliometric analysis of research trends
of acupuncture therapy in the treatment of migraine from 2000 to
2020”. J Pain Res. 2021;14:1399–414.
[28] Yao L, Hui L, Yang Z, et al. “Freshwater microplastics pollution:
detecting and visualizing emerging trends based on Citespace II”.
Chemosphere. 2020;245:125627.
[29] Zhang J, Song L, Xu L, et al. “Knowledge domain and emerging trends
in ferroptosis research: a bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis.
Front Oncol. 2021;11:686726.
[30] Wang Y, Jia Y, Li M, et al. “Hotspot and frontier analysis of exercise
training therapy for heart failure complicated with depression based on
web of science database and big data analysis”. Front Cardiovasc Med.
2021;8:665993.
[31] World Health Organisation. “Global Report on Diabetes,” Geneva,
Switzerland, Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han-
dle/10665/204871/9789241565257_eng.pdf [Accessed 01 2021]
[32] Kodonas K, Fardi A, Gogos C, et al. “Scientometric analysis of vital
pulp therapy studies”. Int Endod J. 2021;54:220–30.
[33] Bus SA, Van Netten JJ, Hinchliffe RJ, et al. “Standards for the development
and methodology of the 2019 International working group on the diabetic
foot guidelines”. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(Suppl 1):e3267.
[34] Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, et al. “2012 infectious diseases soci-
ety of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treat-
ment of diabetic foot infections”. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:e132–73.
[35] Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. “Preventing foot ulcers in patients
with diabetes”. JAMA. 2005;293:217–28.
[36] Chen C, Leydesdorff L. “Patterns of connections and movements in
dual-map overlays: a new method of publication portfolio analysis”. J
Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:334–51.
[37] Bowering CK. “Diabetic foot ulcers. Pathophysiology, assessment, and
therapy”. Can Fam Physician. 2001;47:1007–16.
[38] Liao F, An R, Pu F, et al. “Effect of exercise on risk factors of diabetic
foot ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Am J Phys Med
Rehabil. 2019;98:103–16.
[39] Rauwerda JA. “Foot debridement: anatomic knowledge is mandatory”.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2000;16(Suppl 1):S23–6.
[40] Hicks CW, Canner JK, Mathioudakis N, et al. “Neighborhood socio-
economic disadvantage is not associated with wound healing in dia-
betic foot ulcer patients treated in a multidisciplinary setting”. J Surg
Res. 2018;224:102–11.
[41] Musuuza J, Sutherland BL, Kurter S, et al. A systematic review of mul-
tidisciplinary teams to reduce major amputations for patients with dia-
betic foot ulcers. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71:1433–1446.e3.
[42] Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z, et al. “Application of discrete choice exper-
iment in health care: a bibliometric analysis”. Front Public Health.
2021;9:673698.