Comparison of 4, 8, and 12 week screening and foot care frequencies in persons in remission: The DIATIME comparative efficacy study – A randomized clinical trial
Authors' conclusion
This trial found superior clinical efficacy in preventing plantar recurrence rates with the 4-weeks screening period compared to 8 and 12 weeks. This trial was
Study context
- Population
- High-risk patients in remission with a healed plantar foot ulcer
- Participants
- 148 patients
- Comparison
- Foot screening every 4 vs 8 vs 12 weeks
- Primary endpoint
- Percentage of participants with plantar DFU recurrence
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Methodological detailsthree-arm, comparative efficacy
- Three-arm
- Comparative efficacy
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Plantar DFU recurrence · 12 months
P < 0.001
- Overall recurrence
- 50 participants (33.8 %)
Further findings
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Ulcer survival curvesBetween 4-weeks and 8-weeks; 12-weeks · curves significantly differed | log-rank test, P < 0.001 |
Logistic regression: allocation associated with ulcer recurrence · 1 year
- Allocation the only variable associated with recurrence (P < 0.001)
- 95 % CI 1.509-4.001
Original publication
Comparison of 4, 8, and 12 week screening and foot care frequencies in persons in remission: The DIATIME comparative efficacy study – A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 24 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →