Comparative Analysis of Infrared Dermal Thermography and Leukocyte Count for Diabetic Foot Infection Diagnosis

Infrared Dermal Thermography and Leukocyte Count in Diabetic Foot Infection Diagnosis

Authors

  • Mustamu AC Department of Nursing, Politeknik Kesehatan Kemenkes Sorong, Basuki Rahmat Street, Km 11, East Sorong district, Sorong City, 98417, Southwest Papua, Indonesia
  • Sorong PK Department of Nursing, Politeknik Kesehatan Kemenkes Sorong, Basuki Rahmat Street, Km 11, East Sorong district, Sorong City, 98417, Southwest Papua, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60787/tnhj.v24i3.850

Keywords:

Temperature, Leukocyte Count, Infrared Dermal Thermography, Diagnosis, Diabetic Foot Infection

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a major complication of diabetes, often leading to severe outcomes like amputation. Accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial for effective management. This study compares two diagnostic methods—Infrared Dermal Thermography (IDT) and leukocyte count (LC)—with the gold standard of clinical assessment for detecting DFIs.

Method: A total of 100 patients with suspected diabetic foot infections (DFIs) were evaluated using both Infrared Dermal Thermography (IDT) and leukocyte count (LC). This study employed a quasi-experimental cross-over design, allowing each participant to serve as their own control by undergoing both diagnostic methods in different sequences. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), using clinical confirmation of infection as the gold standard. Foot temperatures were measured using a thermal camera, while leukocyte counts were obtained from blood samples. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to assess the predictive power of both IDT and LC. Prior to logistic regression, multicollinearity was evaluated using the variance inflation factor (VIF), and the goodness-of-fit was assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The Box-Tidwell procedure was applied to test the assumption of linearity between continuous independent variables and the logit. Both methods showed significant predictive power for DFI diagnosis, with a significance level set at 0.05.

Result: IDT showed a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 80%, PPV of 82%, and NPV of 89%. LC had a sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 70%, PPV of 73%, and NPV of 78%. Regression analysis indicated that while both methods were significant, LC demonstrated a higher predictive strength (regression coefficient: 0.60) compared to IDT (0.45).

Conclusion: IDT is a valuable tool for early DFI detection, complementing LC. Integrating both methods could improve diagnostic accuracy, although further research with larger sample sizes is necessary to refine these findings and their clinical applications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Edmonds M, Manu C, Vas P. The current burden of diabetic foot disease. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 17:88–93.

Zhou K, Lansang MC. Diabetes Mellitus and Infection. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Blackman MR, Boyce A, Chrousos G, Corpas E, et al., editors. Endotext [Internet]. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000 [cited 2024 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK569326/

Maida CD, Daidone M, Pacinella G, Norrito RL, Pinto A, Tuttolomondo A. Diabetes and Ischemic Stroke: An Old and New Relationship an Overview of the Close Interaction between These Diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(4):2397.

Jodheea-Jutton A, Hindocha S, Bhaw-Luximon A. Health economics of diabetic foot ulcer and recent trends to accelerate treatment. The Foot. 2022; 52:101909.

Tomic D, Shaw JE, Magliano DJ. The burden and risks of emerging complications of diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2022;18(9):525–39.

Vincent-Edinboro RL, Onuoha P. Beliefs and self-reported practice of footcare among persons with type II diabetes mellitus attending selected health centres in east Trinidad. Egypt J Intern Med. 2022;34(1):92.

Falcone M, Meier JJ, Marini MG, Caccialanza R, Aguado JM, Del Prato S, et al. Diabetes and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021; 174:108732.

Rismayanti IDA, Nursalam, Farida VN, Dewi NWS, Utami R, Aris A, et al. Early detection to prevent foot ulceration among type 2 diabetes mellitus patient: A multi-intervention review. J Public Health Res. 2022;11(2):2752.

Troisi N, Bertagna G, Juszczak M, Canovaro F, Torri L, Adami D, et al. Emergent management of diabetic foot problems in the modern era: Improving outcomes. Semin Vasc Surg. 2023;36(2):224–33.

Swaminathan N, Awuah WA, Bharadwaj HR, Roy S, Ferreira T, Adebusoye FT, et al. Early intervention and care for Diabetic Foot Ulcers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Addressing challenges and exploring future strategies: A narrative review. Health Sci Rep. 2024;7(5):e2075.

Kurkela O, Lahtela J, Arffman M, Forma L. Infrared Thermography Compared to Standard Care in the Prevention and Care of Diabetic Foot: A Cost Analysis Utilizing Real-World Data and an Expert Panel. Clin Outcomes Res. 2023; 15:111–23.

Ilo A, Romsi P, Mäkelä J. Infrared Thermography and Vascular Disorders in Diabetic Feet. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2019;14(1):28–36.

Hutting KH, aan de Stegge WB, Kruse RR, van Baal JG, Bus SA, van Netten JJ. Infrared thermography for monitoring severity and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Vasc Biol. 2020;2(1):1–10.

Faus Camarena M, Izquierdo-Renau M, Julian-Rochina I, Arrébola M, Miralles M. Update on the Use of Infrared Thermography in the Early Detection of Diabetic Foot Complications: A Bibliographic Review. Sensors. 2024;24(1):252.

Lauri C, Noriega-Álvarez E, Chakravartty RM, Gheysens O, Glaudemans AWJM, Slart RHJA, et al. Diagnostic imaging of the diabetic foot: an EANM evidence-based guidance. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024;51(8):2229–46.

Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Hardman MJ, Malone M, Embil JM, Attinger CE, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Diabetic Foot Infections [Internet]. Arlington (VA): American Diabetes Association; 2020 [cited 2024 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554227/

Lauri C, Leone A, Cavallini M, Signore A, Giurato L, Uccioli L. Diabetic Foot Infections: The Diagnostic Challenges. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1779.

Rajab AAH, Hegazy WAH. What’s old is new again: Insights into diabetic foot microbiome. World J Diabetes. 2023;14(6):680–704.

Liu C, Ponsero AJ, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA, Hurwitz BL. The dynamic wound microbiome. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):358.

Ramirez-GarciaLuna JL, Rangel-Berridi K, Bartlett R, Fraser RD, Martinez-Jimenez MA. Use of Infrared Thermal Imaging for Assessing Acute Inflammatory Changes: A Case Series. Cureus. 14(9):e28980.

Kesztyüs D, Brucher S, Wilson C, Kesztyüs T. Use of Infrared Thermography in Medical Diagnosis, Screening, and Disease Monitoring: A Scoping Review. Medicina (Mex). 2023;59(12):2139.

Downloads

Published

2024-10-05

How to Cite

Mustamu, A. C., & Sorong, P. K. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Infrared Dermal Thermography and Leukocyte Count for Diabetic Foot Infection Diagnosis : Infrared Dermal Thermography and Leukocyte Count in Diabetic Foot Infection Diagnosis. The Nigerian Health Journal, 24(3), 1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.60787/tnhj.v24i3.850

Issue

Section

Original Articles
Abtract Views | PDF Download | EPUB Download: 17 / 10 / 4

Similar Articles

<< < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.