Clinical Diagnosis Versus Plain Radiography for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Prospective Study of Diagnostic Agreement in a Resource‐Limited Settings
5 affiliations
- 1Abbas Medical Centre Dar es Salaam Tanzania
- 2Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences Dar es Salaam Tanzania
- 3University of Staffordshire Stoke‐on‐Trent UK
- 4Kariuki University Dar es Salaam Tanzania
- 5Faculty of Health, Community and Life Sciences University of Salford Manchester UK
Abstract
Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is a serious complication of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in advanced infections. In low‐resource settings, access to medical imaging may be limited. This study evaluated the diagnostic agreement between a composite clinical approach (clinical assessment plus probe‐to‐bone test) compared with plain radiography for diagnosing DFO, including performance across ulcer categories. A prospective cohort study was conducted from December 2021 to January 2025 among patients with suspected DFO. Participants underwent clinical evaluation, risk factor assessment, ulcer history, SINBAD classification, probe‐to‐bone testing and plain radiography. Diagnostic performance measures were calculated. Given the absence of a gold standard reference test (bone biopsy) in this low‐resource setting, performance measures represent comparative diagnostic agreement with plain radiography rather than absolute diagnostic accuracy. A total of 166 patients with deep foot ulcers were enrolled. Composite clinical diagnosis identified osteomyelitis in 117 patients and excluded it in 49. Plain radiography was positive in 96 of 117 composite positive cases, while 21 were discordant; all 49 composite negative cases were radiographically negative. The composite approach showed 100% sensitivity, 70% specificity and 87.3% overall agreement. Sensitivity remained 100% across ulcer categories, while specificity increased significantly from 63.8% in SINBAD‐4 ulcers to 77.8% in SINBAD‐5 ulcers, improving agreement from 86.1% to 89.7%. In conclusion, composite clinical diagnosis demonstrates substantial agreement with plain radiography in this cohort of patients with suspected DFO. This can provide a practical adjunct for clinical assessment in resource‐limited settings where imaging is unavailable or difficult to interpret but should not be considered a definitive diagnostic test in the absence of an independent reference standard.
Related
- Vivaray Hb pro non-invasive hemoglobin device: A prospective diagnostic accuracy study measuring agreement with a calibrated blood cell counter
- Diagnostic efficacy of a novel bedside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry device for the diagnosis of osteoporosis: a prospective cohort study
- Group A Streptococcal Septic Arthritis and Osteomyelitis Presenting As Acute Rheumatic Fever: A Diagnostic Dilemma
- Interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and the contribution of PTEN immunohistochemistry
- Diagnostic Performance of Different AI Tools for Chest Radiography: A CT-Anchored Per-Abnormality Analysis in a Tertiary Referral Center.
BibTeX
@article{abbas2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical Diagnosis Versus Plain Radiography for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Prospective Study of Diagnostic Agreement in a Resource‐Limited Settings}},
author = {Zulfiqarali G. Abbas and Raidah R. Gangji and Roozbeh Naemi},
journal = {International wound journal},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1111/iwj.71085},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13730625},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical Diagnosis Versus Plain Radiography for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Prospective Study of Diagnostic Agreement in a Resource‐Limited Settings
AU - Zulfiqarali G. Abbas
AU - Raidah R. Gangji
AU - Roozbeh Naemi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/01
JO - International wound journal
DO - 10.1111/iwj.71085
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13730625
AB - Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is a serious complication of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in advanced infections. In low‐resource settings, access to medical imaging may be limited. This study evaluated the diagnostic agreement between a composite clinical approach (clinical assessment plus probe‐to‐bone test) compared with plain radiography for diagnosing DFO, including performance across ulcer categories. A prospective cohort study was conducted from December 2021 to January 2025 among patients with suspected DFO. Participants underwent clinical evaluation, risk factor assessment, ulcer history, SINBAD classification, probe‐to‐bone testing and plain radiography. Diagnostic performance measures were calculated. Given the absence of a gold standard reference test (bone biopsy) in this low‐resource setting, performance measures represent comparative diagnostic agreement with plain radiography rather than absolute diagnostic accuracy. A total of 166 patients with deep foot ulcers were enrolled. Composite clinical diagnosis identified osteomyelitis in 117 patients and excluded it in 49. Plain radiography was positive in 96 of 117 composite positive cases, while 21 were discordant; all 49 composite negative cases were radiographically negative. The composite approach showed 100% sensitivity, 70% specificity and 87.3% overall agreement. Sensitivity remained 100% across ulcer categories, while specificity increased significantly from 63.8% in SINBAD‐4 ulcers to 77.8% in SINBAD‐5 ulcers, improving agreement from 86.1% to 89.7%. In conclusion, composite clinical diagnosis demonstrates substantial agreement with plain radiography in this cohort of patients with suspected DFO. This can provide a practical adjunct for clinical assessment in resource‐limited settings where imaging is unavailable or difficult to interpret but should not be considered a definitive diagnostic test in the absence of an independent reference standard.
SN - 1742-4801
SN - 1742-481X
ER -