SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Endocrinol.
Sec. Clinical Diabetes
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1660465
This article is part of the Research TopicDiabetes Complications: Navigating Challenges and Unveiling New SolutionsView all 10 articles
Diagnostic Value and Integrated Threshold of ESR for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A systemic review and Meta-Analysis
Provisionally accepted- People's Liberation Army Air Force Special Medical Center, Beijing, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is a severe complication of diabetic foot infections (DFI). Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for improving patient outcomes. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), a commonly used inflammatory marker, has been controversial regarding its diagnostic value and optimal cutoff values in DFO. Objective: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of ESR for DFO and to determine an optimal pooled cutoff value for the marker. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OVID, and the Wanfang database was conducted for literature related to ESR in the diagnosis of DFO, with the search period extending through March 2025. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was applied for quality evaluation of the included studies. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 18.0 to generate hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves and forest plots for assessing the diagnostic performance of ESR in DFO. To determine the optimal composite cutoff value of ESR for diagnosing DFO, a different random intercepts and common random slope (DICS) model was implemented using R4.5.0. Subsequently, a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) was constructed to predict the corresponding sensitivity and specificity at the ESR threshold of 70 mm/h. Results: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 12 studies with a total of 1,674 subjects were included. The HSROC model revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) for ESR in diagnosing DFO was 0.71, with sensitivity and specificity values of 0.76 and 0.73, respectively. The DICS model identified an optimal pooled cutoff value for ESR at 51.6 mm/h, with corresponding sensitivity and specificity values of 0.80 and 0.67, respectively. Using the GLM model, an ESR cutoff of 70 mm/h yielded sensitivity and specificity of 0.61 and 0.83, respectively. Conclusion: ESR demonstrates moderate diagnostic efficacy in the identification of DFO. Based on our findings, we recommend the optimal pooled cutoff value for ESR is 51.6 mm/h, as a preliminary screening tool in the diagnostic workup of DFO.
Keywords: diabetic foot osteomyelitis, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Diagnostic accuracy, Meta-analysis, Hierarchical summary ROC curve, diagnostic cutoff, Inflammatory biomarkers
Received: 06 Jul 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Liu, Tao, Zhang, Hou, Zhou and Tian. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Da Zhang, People's Liberation Army Air Force Special Medical Center, Beijing, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.