Telemedical home-monitoring of diabetic foot disease using photographic foot imaging - a feasibility study

Department of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, location Almelo, Zilvermeeuw 1, 7600 SZ Almelo, The Netherlands.
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (Impact Factor: 1.54). 11/2011; 18(1):32-6. DOI: 10.1258/jtt.2011.110504
Source: PubMed


We assessed the feasibility of using a photographic foot imaging device (PFID) as a tele-monitoring tool in the home environment of patients with diabetes who were at high risk of ulceration. Images of the plantar foot were taken three times a week over a period of four months in the home of 22 high-risk patients. The images were remotely assessed by a diabetic foot specialist. At the end of the study, 12% of images were missing, mainly due to modem or server failures (66%), or non-adherence (11%). All three referrals for diagnosed ulcers and 31 of 32 referrals for abundant callus resulted in treatment. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D visual analogue scale), increased from 7.5 at baseline to 7.9 at end of follow-up, but not significantly. Mean scores on a visual analogue scale for different usability domains (independence, ease of use, technical aspects and value) ranged from seven to nine. The study demonstrates the feasibility of using the PFID for the early diagnosis of foot disease, which may prevent complications in high-risk patients with diabetes.

15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early detection of (pre-)signs of ulceration on a diabetic foot is valuable for clinical practice. Hyperspectral imaging is a promising technique for detection and classification of such (pre-)signs. However, the number of the spectral bands should be limited to avoid overfitting, which is critical for pixel classification with hyperspectral image data. The goal was to design a detector/classifier based on spectral imaging (SI) with a small number of optical bandpass filters. The performance and stability of the design were also investigated. The selection of the bandpass filters boils down to a feature selection problem. A dataset was built, containing reflectance spectra of 227 skin spots from 64 patients, measured with a spectrometer. Each skin spot was annotated manually by clinicians as "healthy" or a specific (pre-)sign of ulceration. Statistical analysis on the data set showed the number of required filters is between 3 and 7, depending on additional constraints on the filter set. The stability analysis revealed that shot noise was the most critical factor affecting the classification performance. It indicated that this impact could be avoided in future SI systems with a camera sensor whose saturation level is higher than 106, or by postimage processing.
    Journal of Biomedical Optics 12/2013; 18(12):126004. DOI:10.1117/1.JBO.18.12.126004 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Patients with diabetic foot disease require frequent screening to prevent complications and may be helped through telemedical home monitoring. Within this context, the goal was to determine the validity and reliability of assessing diabetic foot infection using photographic foot imaging and infrared thermography. Subjects and methods: For 38 patients with diabetes who presented with a foot infection or were admitted to the hospital with a foot-related complication, photographs of the plantar foot surface using a photographic imaging device and temperature data from six plantar regions using an infrared thermometer were obtained. A temperature difference between feet of >2.2 °C defined a "hotspot." Two independent observers assessed each foot for presence of foot infection, both live (using the Perfusion-Extent-Depth-Infection-Sensation classification) and from photographs 2 and 4 weeks later (for presence of erythema and ulcers). Agreement in diagnosis between live assessment and (the combination of ) photographic assessment and temperature recordings was calculated. Results: Diagnosis of infection from photographs was specific (>85%) but not very sensitive (<60%). Diagnosis based on hotspots present was sensitive (>90%) but not very specific (<25%). Diagnosis based on the combination of photographic and temperature assessments was both sensitive (>60%) and specific (>79%). Intra-observer agreement between photographic assessments was good (Cohen's κ=0.77 and 0.52 for both observers). Conclusions: Diagnosis of foot infection in patients with diabetes seems valid and reliable using photographic imaging in combination with infrared thermography. This supports the intended use of these modalities for the home monitoring of high-risk patients with diabetes to facilitate early diagnosis of signs of foot infection.
    Diabetes Technology &amp Therapeutics 04/2014; 16(6). DOI:10.1089/dia.2013.0251 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Consumer health technologies can educate patients about diabetes and support their self-management, yet usability evidence is rarely published even though it determines patient engagement, optimal benefit of any intervention, and an understanding of generalizability. Therefore, we conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles published from 2009 to 2013 that tested the usability of a web- or mobile-delivered system/application designed to educate and support patients with diabetes. Overall, the 23 papers included in our review used mixed (n = 11), descriptive quantitative (n = 9), and qualitative methods (n = 3) to assess usability, such as documenting which features performed as intended and how patients rated their experiences. More sophisticated usability evaluations combined several complementary approaches to elucidate more aspects of functionality. Future work pertaining to the design and evaluation of technology-delivered diabetes education/support interventions should aim to standardize the usability testing processes and publish usability findings to inform interpretation of why an intervention succeeded or failed and for whom.
    Current Diabetes Reports 10/2014; 14(10):534. DOI:10.1007/s11892-014-0534-9 · 3.08 Impact Factor
Show more