Table 1.
An adapted version of the IWGDF classification system of diabetic foot ulcers.
Fig 1.
PRISMA flow diagram depicting study selection algorithm.
Table 2.
Characteristics of all studies included in the review.
Table 3.
Cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ESR, CRP, PCT, and WCC for IWGDF grade 1 versus grade 2 diabetic foot ulcers.
Table 4.
Cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ESR, CRP, PCT, and WCC for IWGDF grade 2 versus grade 3 diabetic foot ulcers.
Fig 2.
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate for differentiating between IWGDF grade 1 and grade 2 ulcers.
(A) sensitivity of ESR. (B) specificity of ESR. (C) AUC of ESR.
Fig 3.
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate for diagnosing IWGDF grade 3 DFU.
(A) sensitivity of ESR. (B) specificity of ESR. (C) AUC of ESR.
Fig 4.
C-reactive protein for the diagnosis of IWGDF grade 2 DFU.
(A) sensitivity of CRP. (B) specificity of CRP. (C) AUC of CRP.
Fig 5.
C-reactive protein for differentiating IWGDF grade 3 ulcers from IWGDF grade 2 ulcers.
(A) sensitivity of CRP. (B) specificity of CRP. (C) AUC of CRP.
Fig 6.
Procalcitonin for the diagnosis of infected DFU without osteomyelitis (IWGDF grade 2).
(A) sensitivity of PCT. (B) specificity of PCT. (C) AUC of PCT.
Fig 7.
Procalcitonin for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (IWGDF grade 3).
(A) sensitivity of PCT. (B) specificity of PCT. (C) AUC of PCT.
Fig 8.
Usefulness of WCC for diagnosing IWGDF grade 2 ulcers.
(A) sensitivity of WCC. (B) specificity of WCC. (C) AUC of WCC.
Fig 9.
White cell count for diagnosis of DFO (IWGDF grade 3).
(A) sensitivity of WCC. (B) specificity of WCC. (C) AUC of WCC.
Fig 10.
Bar graph of sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of ESR, CRP, PCT and WCC for IWGDF grade 1 versus grade 2 ulcers.
Fig 11.
Bar graph of sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of ESR, CRP, PCT and WCC for IWGDF grade 2 versus grade 3 ulcers.