Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes, foot ulceration, and peripheral artery disease (PAD) are difficult to predict. The prediction of important clinical outcomes, such as wound healing and major amputation, would be a valuable tool to help guide management and target interventions for limb salvage. Despite the existence of a number of classification tools, no consensus exists as to the most useful bedside tests with which to predict outcome. We here present an updated systematic review from the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot, comprising 15 studies published between 1980 and 2018 describing almost 6800 patients with diabetes and foot ulceration. Clinical examination findings as well as six non-invasive bedside tests were evaluated for their ability to predict wound healing and amputation. The most useful tests to inform on the probability of healing were skin perfusion pressure ≥ 40 mmHg, toe pressure ≥ 30 mmHg, or TcPO2  ≥ 25 mmHg. With these thresholds, all of these tests increased the probability of healing by greater than 25% in at least one study. To predict major amputation, the most useful tests were ankle pressure  less then  50 mmHg, ABI  less then  0.5, toe pressure  less then  30 mmHg, and TcPO2   less then  25 mmHg, which increased the probability of major amputation by greater than 25%. These indicative values may be used as a guide when deciding which patients are at highest risk for poor outcomes and should therefore be evaluated for revascularization at an early stage. However, this should always be considered within the wider context of important co-existing factors such as infection, wound characteristics, and other comorbidities. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the use of offloading interventions to promote the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes and updates the previous IWGDF guideline. We followed the GRADE methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the PICO format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where evidence was not available, and a weighing of the benefits and harms, patient preferences, feasibility and applicability, and costs related to the intervention. For healing a neuropathic plantar forefoot or midfoot ulcer in a person with diabetes, we recommend that a nonremovable knee-high offloading device is the first choice of offloading tre© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.BACKGROUND Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified auidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.In patients with diabetes, foot ulceration and peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is often difficult to determine whether, when and how to revascularise the affected lower extremity. The presence of PAD is a major risk factor for non-healing and yet clinical outcomes of revascularisation are not necessarily related to technical success. The International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated systematic review on the effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD is comprised of 64 studies describing >13 000 patients. Amongst 60 case series and 4 non-randomised controlled studies, we summarised clinically relevant outcomes and found them to be broadly similar between patients treated with open vs endovascular therapy. Following endovascular revascularisation, the 1 year and 2 year limb salvage rates were 80% (IQR 78-82%) and 78% (IQR 75-83%), whereas open therapy was associated with rates of 85% (IQR 80-90%) at 1 year and 87% (IQR 85-88%) at 2 years, however thlceration. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.BACKGROUND Offloading interventions are commonly used in clinical practice to heal foot ulcers. The aim of this updated systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of offloading interventions to heal diabetic foot ulcers. METHODS We updated our previous systematic review search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to also include original studies published between July 29, 2014 and August 13, 2018 relating to four offloading intervention categories in populations with diabetic foot ulcers (a) offloading devices, (b) footwear, (c) other offloading techniques, and (d) surgical offloading techniques. Outcomes included ulcer healing, plantar pressure, ambulatory activity, adherence, adverse events, patient-reported measures, and cost-effectiveness. Included controlled studies were assessed for methodological quality and had key data extracted into evidence and risk of bias tables. Included non-controlled studies were summarised on a narrative basis. RESULTS We identified 41 studies from our updatedopathic ulcers with infection or ischemia. CONCLUSION Strong evidence supports the use of non-removable knee-high offloading devices (either TCC or non-removable walker) as the first-choice offloading intervention for healing plantar neuropathic forefoot and midfoot ulcers. read more Removable offloading devices, either knee-high or ankle-high, are preferred as second choice over other offloading interventions. The evidence bases to support any other offloading intervention is still weak and more high-quality controlled studies are needed in these areas. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.