Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study developed a clinical prediction rule that accurately assessed the risk of foot ulceration and suggested that less frequent monitoring for those at low risk might be acceptable.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Fay Crawford 1,2,*, Francesca M Chappell 3, James Lewsey 3, Richard Riley 4, Neil Hawkins 5, Donald Nicolson 1, Robert Heggie 5, Marie Smith 6, Margaret Horne 7, Aparna Amanna 1, Angela Martin 8, Saket Gupta 8, Karen Gray 1, David Weller 7, Julie Brittenden 9, Graham Leese 10

1 NHS Fife, R&D Department, Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline, UK
2 The Sir James Mackenzie Institute for Early Diagnosis, The School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
3 Neuroimaging Sciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
4 Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
5 Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
6 Library & Knowledge Service, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK
7 Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
8 Diabetes Centre, Victoria Hospital, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK
9 Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
10 Diabetes and Endocrinology, Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document