Your web browser is out of date.

For your security and improved experience online, please update your browser.

This site is intended for healthcare professionals only
×
Share this article
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

Response: Classification vs description

Clinical effectiveness requires accurate and concise ulcer descriptions and classifications to improve interdisciplinary communication and for meaningful inter-centre comparisons. Ulcer classifications should delineate unique ulcer types with definable characteristics distinct from other ulcer categories, guiding prognosis, audit and research. A good example is the classification of ulcers by suspected aetiology, e.g. neuropathic, or by perceived severity, e.g. superficial. Ulcer classifications should be applied once, based on the initial characteristics, and should not alter with the progress of therapy, allowing outcome evaluations for each ulcer type.

In contrast, descriptions use definable characteristics which are ephemeral, changing as the ulcer progresses. Descriptive terms may also be used in classifications but generally have too many variables to have workable numbers of categories. Therefore, descriptions are not a basis for classifying an ulcer, but should be used to prompt adjustments in treatment as the ulcer changes, and to facilitate referrals in an unambiguous way. 

The Diabetic Foot journal has published the Simple Staging System and the S(AD) SAD, joining the Texas and Wagner systems in the literature. The Texas and Wagner systems have both been validated, but neither of the recent British systems has been validated formally. 

In smaller units with a clinical focus, delineating neuropathic and neuroischaemic ulcers, or use of the Wagner system, will suffice to audit outcomes and guide management. The Simple Staging System, its subcategorisations and treatment schema  will also aid management decisions. However, in research and for comparisons between units, I believe that a more detailed system, such as the Texas or S(AD) SAD, should be used. Discussion and research to reach a consensus is urgently required.

Clinical effectiveness requires accurate and concise ulcer descriptions and classifications to improve interdisciplinary communication and for meaningful inter-centre comparisons. Ulcer classifications should delineate unique ulcer types with definable characteristics distinct from other ulcer categories, guiding prognosis, audit and research. A good example is the classification of ulcers by suspected aetiology, e.g. neuropathic, or by perceived severity, e.g. superficial. Ulcer classifications should be applied once, based on the initial characteristics, and should not alter with the progress of therapy, allowing outcome evaluations for each ulcer type.

In contrast, descriptions use definable characteristics which are ephemeral, changing as the ulcer progresses. Descriptive terms may also be used in classifications but generally have too many variables to have workable numbers of categories. Therefore, descriptions are not a basis for classifying an ulcer, but should be used to prompt adjustments in treatment as the ulcer changes, and to facilitate referrals in an unambiguous way. 

The Diabetic Foot journal has published the Simple Staging System and the S(AD) SAD, joining the Texas and Wagner systems in the literature. The Texas and Wagner systems have both been validated, but neither of the recent British systems has been validated formally. 

In smaller units with a clinical focus, delineating neuropathic and neuroischaemic ulcers, or use of the Wagner system, will suffice to audit outcomes and guide management. The Simple Staging System, its subcategorisations and treatment schema  will also aid management decisions. However, in research and for comparisons between units, I believe that a more detailed system, such as the Texas or S(AD) SAD, should be used. Discussion and research to reach a consensus is urgently required.

Share this article
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on whatsapp
For the latest news and articles

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals

© Copyright Omniamed Communications. All Rights Reserved​
108 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6EU. Registered in the United Kingdom​
Omniamed logo white
For the latest news and articles

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals

 

By clicking ‘Subscribe’, you are agreeing that DiabetesontheNet.com are able to email you periodic newsletters. You may unsubscribe from these at any time. Your info is safe with us and we will never sell or trade your details. For information please review our Privacy Policy.

DiabetesontheNet Logo

This website is for UK healthcare professionals only. To continue, please confirm that you are a UK healthcare professional below.