Open Access

Bacterial distribution, changes of drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection

  • Authors:
    • Ling Liu
    • Zhihui Li
    • Xinxin Liu
    • Shan Guo
    • Limin Guo
    • Xuelian Liu
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: July 26, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6530
  • Pages: 3094-3098
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the bacterial distribution, changes in drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection (DFI). A retrospective analysis of 216 patients with DFI treated at Xinxiang Central Hospital between 2013 and 2016 was carried out to analyze the bacterial distribution, changes of susceptibility and clinical characteristics. A total of 262 pathogenic strains were isolated from 216 patients with DFI. Among them, 43.13% exhibited Gram‑positive (G+) bacteria, 45.04% exhibited Gram‑negative (G‑) bacteria and 11.83% was other. Between 2013 and 2016, the susceptibility of pathogenic bacteria to common antibacterial drugs showed a declining trend year by year. G+ bacteria had high susceptibility to vancomycin and acetazolamide; while G‑ bacteria showed high susceptibility to dibekacin, panipenem and biapenem. The main clinical symptoms of the 216 patients included edema (98.61%), purulent secretions (62.96%) and lower extremity sepsis (58.80%). The top three complications of the 216 cases were lower extremity vascular disease (58.80%), peripheral neuropathy (39.81%) and kidney disease (26.39%). Logistic regression analysis showed that age [odds ratio (OR), 2.708; P=0.005], previous use of antibacterial drugs (OR, 3.816; P=0.007) and application of the third generation cephalosporins (OR, 3.014; P=0.008) were the independent risk factors of drug resistance in patients with DFI (P<0.05). There were numerous types of pathogens in patients with DFI, and all of them had certain drug resistance. The drug susceptibility was decreasing year by year. The pathogens and drug resistance in patients with DFI should be monitored to reduce the incidence of related complications and improve the prognosis of patients.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common disorder of glucose metabolism and a non-communicable chronic disease. DM is a serious threat to human health after cardiovascular disease (1). DM is currently one of the global public health problems and shows an increasing trend year by year. It is estimated that the number of diabetic patients in the world will reach 500 million by 2030 (2). DM has a lot of complications, and diabetic foot (DF) is one of the most serious ones. DF patients suffer from inflammation and foot tissue damages caused by the invasion of pathogenic microorganisms. Approximately 70% of DF patients will have diabetic foot infection (DFI) (3). Many kinds of bacterial can infect DFI patients, and Gram staining differentiate them into Gram-positive (G+) and Gram-negative (G) bacteria (4). The clinical manifestations of DFI are complex and the treatment cycle is long. In addition, the unreasonable use of antimicrobial drugs, and the changes of pathogens and drug resistance in recent years have complicated the treatments and finally led to gangrene and increased amputation rate (5). The distribution of bacteria in DFI patients, the changes of their susceptibility to antimicrobial drugs, and the clinical characteristics of DFI should be studied to achieve better use of antimicrobial drugs, and to provide a scientific basis for the prevention and rapid control of DFI.

Materials and methods

General information

A retrospective analysis of 216 cases of DFI treated at Xinxiang Central Hospital (Xinxiang, China) from 2013 to 2016 was conducted. The inclusion criteria included: i) Meeting the diagnostic criteria of DF (6) and ii) confirmation of bacterial infection by tissue culture of specimen from the foot wound. The exclusion criteria included: i) Liver and renal failure and ii) malignant tumor. All patients had a history of drug use of the drugs covered by this study. The general information of the patients was listed in Table I. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xinxiang Central Hospital and informed consents were signed by the patients.

Table I.

General patient data.

Table I.

General patient data.

CharacteristicsPatients (n=216)
Sex, n (%)
  Male101 (46.76)
  Female115 (53.24)
Age, years, range30–78
Mean age, years52.36±7.47
BMI, kg/m223.54±3.73
Course of disease, years, range1–25
Average course of disease, years11.48±5.36
Fasting blood glucose (mmol/l) (8 h)10.23±4.37
Ulcer duration, days51.73±8.75
Diabetic Foot Wagner Grading, n (%)
  Level 0–2  31 (14.35)
  Level 3 or higher185 (85.65)

[i] Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, unless otherwise indicated.

Methods
Sample collection and strain identification

Patients' foot wound was cleaned with 0.9% sodium chloride solution. A sterile cotton swab was used to collect specimen from the base of the wound. Specimens from patients with deep abscesses were collected by using a sterile syringe to get the pus. The specimens were cultured in growth media (Oxoid Corporation, Basingstoke, UK) and the bacterial strains were identified using a VITEK 32 automated microbial analyzer (BioMérieux, Craponne, France).

Susceptibility analysis

The cultured bacteria were classified and tested for susceptibility by MH agar KB according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS). Bacteria were immediately inoculated on blood agar plates and placed in a 37°C incubator for 24 h. Bacterial identification was carried out using a VITEK2 automatic bacterial analyzer (BioMérieux). Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method was used for drug susceptibility testing. Escherichia coli ATCC35218A, TCC25922, Enterobacter cloacae ATCC700323 and Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC700603 were used as the quality controls for G bacteria, while Staphylococcus aureus ATCC29213 was the quality control for G+ bacteria. All control strains were provided by Nanjing Clinical Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Results between sensitivity and drug resistance that emerged in this study were not subjected to statistical analysis.

Observation indicators

Local clinical features of the patient, including edema, defined as swelling of the lateral limbs and skin thickening starting at the foot and ankle involving the entire lower extremity, purulent secretions, defined as a thin pus overflow of the affected foot, lower extremity pus and blood, defined as pus-like material and blood from lower extremities, bone exposure is defined as the presence of varying degrees of bone tissue exposure in the foot, necrosis, defined as necrosis of skin of the affected foot and the surrounding skin, malodorous smell, defined as bad smell of secretion of the affected foot.

Statistical analysis

Epidata3.1 was used to do the data entry, and SPSS 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. Count data were expressed as number or composition ratio. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to study the impact of different factors. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Distribution of pathogens

262 strains of pathogens were isolated from 216 patients with DFI, including 113 strains of G+ bacteria (43.13%), 118 strains of G bacteria (45.04%), and 31 strains of fungi (11.83%). The results were shown in Fig. 1.

Changes in drug susceptibility of pathogenic bacteria

During 2013 to 2016, there was a gradual declining trend about pathogenic bacteria susceptibility to conventional antibacterial drug, but there was no statistically significant difference among the different time points (P>0.05) (Table II).

Table II.

Changes in drug susceptibilities of pathogenic bacteria during 2013–2016.

Table II.

Changes in drug susceptibilities of pathogenic bacteria during 2013–2016.

G+ bacteria, n (%)G bacteria, n (%)Fungi, n (%)



YearsNo. of identified strainsSusceptibilityNo. of identified strainsSusceptibilityNo. of identified strainsSusceptibility
20132824 (85.71)2925 (86.21)76 (85.71)
20142621 (80.77)2721 (77.78)86 (75.00)
20152720 (74.07)2820 (71.43)75 (71.43)
20163222 (68.75)3423 (67.65)94 (44.44)
Susceptibility of G+ bacteria to antibacterial drugs

G+ bacteria showed the highest susceptibility to vancomycin and acetazolamide, while they had low susceptibility to erythromycin, amoxicillin, norfloxacin and penicillin (Table III).

Table III.

Susceptibilities of G+ bacteria to antibacterial drugs.

Table III.

Susceptibilities of G+ bacteria to antibacterial drugs.

Staphylococcus, n (%) (n=43)Streptococcus, n (%) (n=39)Enterococcus, n (%) (n=31)



Antibacterial drugsResistanceSusceptibilityResistanceSusceptibilityResistanceSusceptibility
Erythromycin41 (95.35)2 (4.65)36 (92.31)1 (2.56)29 (93.55)1 (3.23)
Amoxicillin40 (93.02)3 (6.98)35 (89.74)2 (5.13)27 (87.10)2 (6.45)
Vancomycin6 (13.95)36 (83.72)3 (7.69)35 (89.74)3 (9.68)28 (90.32)
Acetazolamide5 (11.63)37 (86.05)2 (5.13)36 (92.31)2 (6.45)26 (83.87)
Norfloxacin37 (86.05)6 (13.95)34 (87.18)4 (10.26)28 (90.32)3 (9.68)
Penicillin35 (81.40)5 (11.63)31 (79.49)3 (7.69)26 (83.87)2 (6.45)
Susceptibility of G− bacteria to antibacterial drugs

G bacteria showed high susceptibility to dibekacin, panipenem and biapenem, and low susceptibility to cefaclor, norfloxacin and erythromycin (Table IV).

Table IV.

Susceptibilities of G− bacteria to antibacterial drugs.

Table IV.

Susceptibilities of G− bacteria to antibacterial drugs.

Proteus, n (%) (n=45)Escherichia coli, n (%) (n=41)Klebsiella pneumoniae n (%) (n=32)



Antibacterial drugsResistanceSusceptibilityResistanceSusceptibilityResistanceSusceptibility
Cefaclor41 (91.11)3 (6.67)40 (97.56)1 (2.44)29 (90.63)1 (3.13)
Dibekacin7 (15.56)35 (77.78)5 (12.20)32 (78.05)2 (6.25)29 (90.63)
Biapenem6 (13.33)37 (82.22)3 (7.32)37 (90.24)3 (9.38)28 (87.50)
Panipenem5 (11.11)38 (84.44)4 (9.76)36 (87.80)2 (6.25)26 (81.25)
Norfloxacin40 (88.89)5 (11.11)37 (90.24)2 (4.88)28 (87.50)2 (6.25)
Erythromycin38 (84.44)7 (15.56)35 (85.37)3 (7.32)29 (90.63)1 (3.13)
Clinical symptoms of patients

The top three local clinical symptoms of the 216 patients were edema (98.61%), purulent secretions (62.96%), and lower extremity sepsis (58.80%) (Table V).

Table V.

Clinical symptoms of patients.

Table V.

Clinical symptoms of patients.

Clinical symptomsNo. of patients%
Edema21398.61
Purulent secretions13662.96
Lower extremity sepsis12758.80
Exposure of bones7635.19
Necrosis6128.24
Stinky smell5425.00
Complications of the patients

The top three complications were: Lower extremity vascular disease (58.80%), peripheral neuropathy (39.81%), and kidney disease (17.13%) (Table VI).

Table VI.

Complications in patients.

Table VI.

Complications in patients.

ComplicationsNo. of patients%
Lower extremity vascular disease12758.80
Peripheral neuropathy8639.81
Kidney disease3717.13
Hyperlipidemia3616.67
Retinopathy2913.43
Analysis of factors affecting drug resistance in patients with DFI

For the analysis, the presence of drug resistance was used as the dependent variable, and patient age, hospitalization frequency, previous use of antibacterial drugs, combination with osteomyelitis, application of third-generation cephalosporins and the presence of more than three ulcers, were used as the independent variables. The results showed that age (OR=2.708, P=0.005), previous use of antibacterial drugs (OR=3.816, P=0.007), application of the third-generation cephalosporins (OR=3.014, P=0.008) were the independent risk factors for the resistance in patients with DFI (P<0.05) (Table VII).

Table VII.

Logistic regression analysis of the factors affecting the drug resistance in DFI patients.

Table VII.

Logistic regression analysis of the factors affecting the drug resistance in DFI patients.

FactorsβSEWaldOR95% CIP-value
Age0.6180.6736.4242.7081.106–3.8540.005
Hospitalization frequency0.3620.4354.1260.6190.493–0.8740.316
Combination with osteomyelitis0.6150.3143.4270.7160.496–0.8620.218
Previous use of antibacterial drugs0.5630.6067.7033.8161.075–4.7120.007
Application of the third-generation cephalosporins0.6170.5185.5683.0141.103–4.0460.008
More than three ulcers0.4560.4123.7130.7530.275–0.9160.356

[i] CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error of the mean.

Discussion

DM usually occurs in elderly patients. These patients have other diseases and low immunities. In addition, they suffer long-term inadequate local blood supply because of blood glucose control and vascular diseases such as atherosclerosis. Thus, DFI has a high incidence in elderly DM patients (7). Under the influence of long-term hyperglycemia, patients have metabolic disorders and impaired immune systems. Weak immune system results in reduced chemotaxis, adhesion and phagocytosis of monocytes and neutrophils, which cannot resist the invasion of pathogens. In addition, the high levels of sugar and proteins in the exudates from foot wounds create a good environment for the survival and reproduction of bacteria, and thus can easily lead to the occurrence of infections (8). Wound repair in DFI patients is a complex physiological process. Patients usually have serious tissue damage and long courses of disease. Their wounds are difficult to heal and prone to drug resistance, and the prognosis is poor (9).

DFI is caused by a lot of pathogens. According to a relevant statistics (10), G+ bacteria and G bacteria can be detected in DFI. The results of this study showed that G+ bacteria accounted for 43.13%, G bacteria accounted for 45.04%, while others accounted for 11.83% of the pathogens. The majority was G+ and G bacteria. Among the detected G+ bacteria were Staphylococcus, Streptococcus and Enterococcus. Staphylococci is named after the fact that they look like clusters of grapes. Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus can cause suppurative inflammation in DFI patients (11). Streptococcus are usually <2 µm in diameter, ovoid or spheroidal in appearance and has a chain-like appearance. They have a strong invasiveness and can produce a variety of exotoxins, which can aggravate the degree of infection in patients (12). Enterococcus are a group of intestine-dwelling bacteria in the shape of oval or spherical. They appear in short chains or pairs in liquid media and they do not produce spores. They are a group of important infectious pathogens (13). The G bacteria detected in this experiment mainly included Proteus, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Proteus are also called Bacillus. They are secondary infectious bacteria and are usually detected in the late phase of DFI. They cause corrosive tissue damage (14). Escherichia coli is a single-cell bacterium that lives in human intestine and is essential for human body (15). Klebsiella pneumoniae is one of the important infectious pathogens, especially in the immunocompromised population. It can lead to infections such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia and bacteremia with high mortality rate (16).

Clinically, DFI patients are often given broad-spectrum antibacterial drugs to kill bacteria and control infections (17). In clinical practice, antibacterial drugs need to be changed and patients usually need long-term use of a variety of drugs, especially those high-level antimicrobial drugs, resulting in increased drug resistance in patients. When bacteria invade into host cells, antibacterial drugs cannot effectively enter the cells. The compromised anti-infection effects result in delayed wound healing and cause great suffering in patients (18). The results of this study showed that the susceptibility of pathogens to conventional antibacterial drugs have declined year by year from 2013 to 2016, which was closely related to the unreasonable use of antibacterial drugs. In this study, we found that G+ bacteria had high susceptibility to vancomycin and acetazolamide, while G bacteria were sensitive to dibekacin, panipenem and biapenem. These results indicated that drugs with low susceptibility should be avoided in the clinical treatment for G+ bacteria-infected DFI patients, while vancomycin and acetazolamide should be chosen. Similarly, the third-generation cephalosporins should not be prescribed for G bacteria-infected DFI patients. The fourth-generation cephalosporins, dibekacin, panipenem and biapenem should be recommended. The use of drugs with high bacteria susceptibility can effectively control infections and avoid gangrene wounds.

DFI patients generally have low anti-infection abilities. Their clinical syndromes are obvious and mainly manifested as edema, purulent discharge, and lower extremity sepsis. Some patients also suffer bone exposure and necrosis (19). The long-term high blood sugar can easily lead to various complications, including lower extremity vascular disease (58.80%), peripheral neuropathy (39.81%) and kidney disease (26.39%). Lower extremity vascular disease is mainly because patients have low resistance to infections and persistent hyperglycemia can lead to metabolic disorders. Patients' limbs are vulnerable to bacterial invasion, resulting in damage to the endothelial cells on the arterial wall of the lower extremities, causing vascular endothelial dysfunction (20). In addition, the long-term dyslipidemia and other metabolic disorders impair the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, triggering peripheral neuropathy (21). Continued inflammation in DFI patients also causes increased blood pressure, which in turn can impair renal function (22).

This study showed that age, previous use of antibacterial drugs and use of third-generation cephalosporins were independent risk factors for drug resistance in DFI patients (P<0.05). This is because autoimmune ability decreases as patients' age increases. Their high glucose toxicity and oxidative stress can lead to changes in the expression of autophagy genes. The weakened autophagic function of the host cells makes it easier for bacteria but harder for antibacterial drugs to enter the cells, thereby increasing drug resistance (23). Because of lack of proper knowledge, the inappropriate use of third-generation cephalosporins and heavy use of antibacterial drugs in the past have led to a significant increase in drug-resistant pathogens.

In conclusion, DFI patients with bacterial infection mainly have G+ and G bacteria. Their susceptibility to commonly used antibacterial drugs declines year by year. Proper clinical treatment of DFI needs to standardize the use of antibacterial drugs with drug susceptibility testing, so as to improve clinical symptoms and control of DFI.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding was received.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

LL wrote the manuscript. LL and ZL were responsible for patient susceptibility analysis. XiL and SG recorded and analyzed results. LG and XuL performed statistical analysis. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xinxiang Central Hospital (Xinxiang, China) and informed consents were signed by the patients and/or guardians.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Ismail H, Omar MA, Hisham AAN, Aris T, Ambak R, Yusoff MFM and Lim KK: Undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and its risk factors among malaysians: Findings of a nationwide study. Int J Public Health. 6:677–684. 2016.

2 

D'Emden MC, Shaw JE, Jones GR and Cheung NW: Guidance concerning the use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Med J Aust. 203:89–90. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Al-Rubeaan K, Al Derwish M, Ouizi S, Youssef AM, Subhani SN, Ibrahim HM and Alamri BN: Diabetic foot complications and their risk factors from a large retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 10:e01244462015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Yusuf N, Omar MI, Zakaria A, Masnan MJ, Abdullah AA, Kamarudin LM, Shakaff AYM, Thriumani R, Yeap EJ, Othman A and Yasin MS: Rapid bacteria identification using multivariate classifier on diabetic foot infection. J Med Imag Health In. 5:1251–1254. 2015.

5 

Dorresteijn JA, Kriegsman DM and Valk GD: Complex interventions for preventing diabetic foot ulceration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 19–2010.(Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007610.pub2. View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Klenerman L, McCabe C, Cogley D, Crerand S, Laing P and White M: Screening for patients at risk of diabetic foot ulceration in a general diabetic outpatient clinic. Diabet Med. 13:561–563. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Lavigne JP, Sotto A, Dunyach-Remy C and Lipsky BA: New molecular techniques to study the skin microbiota of diabetic foot ulcers. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 4:38–49. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Hingorani A, Lamuraglia GM, Henke P, Meissner MH, Loretz L, Zinszer KM, Driver VR, Frykberg R, Carman TL, Marston W, et al: The management of diabetic foot: A clinical practice guideline by the Society for Vascular Surgery in collaboration with the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Society for Vascular Medicine. J Vasc Surg. 63 Suppl 2:3S–21S. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Pickwell K, Siersma V, Kars M, Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Edmonds M, Holstein P, Jirkovská A, Jude E, Mauricio D, et al: Predictors of lower-extremity amputation in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer. Diabetes Care. 38:852–857. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Stappers MHT, Hagen F, Reimnitz P, Mouton JW, Meis JF and Gyssens IC: Direct molecular versus culture-based assessment of Gram-positive cocci in biopsies of patients with major abscesses and diabetic foot infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 34:1885–1892. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Messad N, Prajsnar TK, Lina G, O'Callaghan D, Foster SJ, Renshaw SA, Skaar EP, Bes M, Dunyach-Remy C, Vandenesch F, et al: Existence of a colonizing staphylococcus aureus strain isolated in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes. 64:2991–2995. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Katz DE, Friedman ND, Ostrovski E, Ravid D, Amrami N, Avivi D, Mengesha B, Zaidenstein R, Lazarovitch T, Dadon M and Marchaim D: Diabetic foot infection in hospitalized adults. J Infect Chemother. 22:167–173. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Reghu R, Padma UD, Sasankan V, Puthur S and Jose J: A microbiological study of diabetic foot ulcer in a south Indian tertiary care hospital. Int J Pharm Sci. 37:167–170. 2016.

14 

Shin NR, Whon TW and Bae JW: Proteobacteria: Microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 33:496–503. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Otsuji N, Sekiguchi M, Iijima T and Takagi Y: Induction of phage formation in the lysogenic Escherichia coli K-12 by mitomycin C. Nature. 184:1079–1080. 1959. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Pitout JD, Nordmann P and Poirel L: Carbapenemase-producing klebsiella pneumoniae, a key pathogen set for global nosocomial dominance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 59:5873–5884. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Alexandrescu VA, Hubermont G, Philips Y, Guillaumie B, Ngongang C, Vandenbossche P, Azdad K, Ledent G and Horion J: Selective primary angioplasty following an angiosome model of reperfusion in the treatment of Wagner 1–4 diabetic foot lesions: Practice in a multidisciplinary diabetic limb service. J Endovasc Ther. 15:580–593. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Serra R, Grande R, Scarcello E, Buffone G and de Franciscis S: Angiosome-targeted revascularisation in diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 12:555–558. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Sutton M, McGrath C, Brady L and Ward J: Diabetic foot care: Assessing the impact of care on the whole patient. Prac Diabetes. 17:147–151. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Sun P, Guo J and Xu N: Correlation between diabetic lower-extremity arterial disease and diabetic neuropathy in patients with type II diabetes: An exploratory study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 8:1396–1400. 2015.PubMed/NCBI

21 

Selvarajah D, Cash T, Davies J, Sankar A, Rao G, Grieg M, Pallai S, Gandhi R, Wilkinson ID and Tesfaye S: SUDOSCAN: A simple, rapid, and objective method with potential for screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. PLoS One. 10:e01382242015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Muthuppalaniappan VM, Sheaff M and Yaqoob MM: Diabetic nephropathy. Medicine. 43:520–525. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Amin N and Doupis J: Diabetic foot disease: From the evaluation of the ‘foot at risk’ to the novel diabetic ulcer treatment modalities. World J Diabetes. 7:153–164. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

October-2018
Volume 16 Issue 4

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Liu L, Li Z, Liu X, Guo S, Guo L and Liu X: Bacterial distribution, changes of drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection. Exp Ther Med 16: 3094-3098, 2018.
APA
Liu, L., Li, Z., Liu, X., Guo, S., Guo, L., & Liu, X. (2018). Bacterial distribution, changes of drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 16, 3094-3098. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6530
MLA
Liu, L., Li, Z., Liu, X., Guo, S., Guo, L., Liu, X."Bacterial distribution, changes of drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 16.4 (2018): 3094-3098.
Chicago
Liu, L., Li, Z., Liu, X., Guo, S., Guo, L., Liu, X."Bacterial distribution, changes of drug susceptibility and clinical characteristics in patients with diabetic foot infection". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 16, no. 4 (2018): 3094-3098. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6530