Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
jkp-logo

Original

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025): Jurnal Keperawatan Padjadjaran

Comparison of the accuracy of two wound classification systems for diabetic foot ulcer healing

DOI
https://doi.org/10.24198/jkp.v13i3.2447
Submitted
December 2, 2023
Published
2025-12-25

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) remain a significant clinical challenge, requiring precise classification systems to aid prognosis and treatment planning. The Wagner classification is widely used but offers limited detail on specific wound characteristics, while the SHID (Suriadi, Haryanto, Imran, Defa) system provides a more comprehensive evaluation but lacks validation.

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate and compare the predictive validity of the Wagner and SHID classification systems in forecasting DFU healing outcomes.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at Kitamura Clinic and Doctor Soedarso Pontianak Hospital between August 2021 and July 2022, involving 89 DFU patients. Both systems were evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios. Predictive validity was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the Youden index.

Results: A cut-off grade of >2 provided optimal predictive value for both systems. The SHID classification demonstrated a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 62%, PPV of 27.5%, and NPV of 98%, while the Wagner classification showed a sensitivity of 58%, specificity of 77%, PPV of 28%, and NPV of 92.2%. Positive likelihood ratios were 2.4 for SHID and 2.5 for Wagner. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.786 (95% CI: 0.69–0.87) for SHID and 0.703 (95% CI: 0.60–0.80) for Wagner. The Youden index was higher for SHID (0.540) compared to Wagner (0.349).

Conclusion: Although both systems are effective for predicting DFU healing within 12 weeks, SHID's superior AUC and Youden index suggest greater clinical utility in screening and managing DFUs.

Article Matrics
Abstract views : 0 times PDF Downloads: 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bhakti, S. J. and W. K. (2020). DMIST Scale for Predicting Healing Time within 12 Weeks in Patients with Diabetic Ulcer. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, 07(10), 2285–2295.
  2. Jais, S., Gusmiyah, T., Syafei, S., & Kardiatun, T. (2016). A reliability study of wound assessment tools for diabetic patients in Indonesia. Diabetic Foot Journal, 19(2), 95–99.
  3. Jais, S., Pratama, K., Fahrain, J., Junaidi, J., Kardiatun, T., & Kawuryan, U. (2022). The SHID wound classification system for diabetic foot ulcer patients: a validity study. Journal of Medicine and Life, 2022(10), 1224–1227. doi: 10.25122/jml-2022-0090
  4. Kaminski, M. R., Golledge, J., Lasschuit, J. W. J., Schott, K. H., Charles, J., Cheney, J., & Raspovic, A. (2022). Australian guideline on prevention of foot ulceration: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 15(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s13047-022-00534-7
  5. Magliano, D. J., Boyko, E. J., & I. D. A. 10th edition scientific committee. (2021). IDF DIABETES ATLAS. In IDF DIABETES ATLAS (10th ed.). doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.10.013
  6. Mandrekar, J. N. (2010). Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Diagnostic Test Assessment. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 5(9), 1315–1316. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d
  7. McDermott, K., Fang, M., Boulton, A. J. M., Selvin, E., & Hicks, C. W. (2023). Etiology, Epidemiology, and Disparities in the Burden of Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Diabetes Care, 46(1), 209–211. doi: 10.2337/dci22-0043
  8. Oyibo, S. O., Jude, E. B., Tarawneh, I., Nguyen, H. C., Harkless, L. B., & Boulton, A. J. M. (2001). A Comparison of Two Diabetic Foot Ulcer Classification Systems. Diabetes Care, 24(1), 84–88. doi: 10.2337/diacare.24.1.84
  9. Schisterman, E. F., Faraggi, D., Reiser, B., & Hu, J. (2008). Youden Index and the optimal threshold. Statistics in Medicine, 23(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1002/sim.2993.Youden
  10. Shreffler, J., & Huecker, M. R. (2022). Diagnostic Testing Accuracy: Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive Values and Likelihood Ratios. University of Louisville School of Medicine: StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32491423
  11. Suriadi, Haryanto, I. and D. A. (2021). Reliability study of a new wound classification system for patients with diabetes. Clin. Pract, 18(4), 1672–1677.
  12. Wei He, Peng Liu, and H.-L. C. (2012). the braden scale Cannot be used alone for assessing Pressure ulcer risk in surgical Patients: a meta-analysis. Ostomy Wound Management, 58(2), 34–40.