Table 2.
The different models of thermography devices employed in the included studies.
| Study (Year) | Study Design | Scope of the Study | PAD Stage | Sample Size | Age | Measurement Location | Temperature Variations | Other Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagavathiappan et al. (2008) | Case report | Detection of PAD | NA | 3 | 35.7 (28–48) | Shins, Feet | NA | NA | [47] |
| Philip et al. (2009) | Technical note | Detection of PAD | NA | 4 | 36.7 (28–40) | Shins, Feet | NA | NA | [21] |
| Carabott et al. (2021) |
Observational study | Assessment after limb elevation challenge | I–III | 27 | 62.7 ± 6 non-PAD; 71.1 ± 7 mild PAD; 71 ± 5 severe PAD |
Feet | −0.03 °C (non-PAD) −0.18 °C (mild PAD) −0.27 °C (severe PAD) |
NA | [40] |
| Chang et al. (2020) |
Observational study | Assessment after revascularization | IV | 124 | 73 (63–80) | Feet | +1.3 °C (healing) +1.3 °C (nonhealing) |
NA | [49] |
| de Carvalho Abreu et al. (2022) | Nonrandomized | Correlation IRT-ABI | I–IV | 53 | 59.9 ± 16.3 | Feet | NA | ABI | [22] |
| Ellul et al. (2017) |
Randomized | Assessment after EMS | II | 40 | 70.8 ± 7 | Feet | −0.5 °C (baseline) −0.3 °C (follow-up) |
ABI, ACD | [36] |
| Gatt et al. (2018) |
Nonrandomized | Assessment of peripheral perfusion | III | 53 | 64.5 ± 5 females DM + PAD; 72.2 ± 8 males DM + PAD; 59.8 ± 11 females DM; 65.8 ± 7 males DM |
Feet | NA | ABI, SD | [41] |
| Gatt et al. (2018) | Nonrandomized | Detection of foot complications | I–II | 182 | NA | Feet | NA | ABI, SD, 10 g monofilament | [42] |
| Hosaki et al. (2002) |
Case report | Assessment of peripheral perfusion | NA | 27 | 67.4 (51–82) | Feet | NA | LDBF | [46] |
| Huang et al. (2011) |
Observational study | Detection of PAD | NA | 51 | 72.9 ± 10 PAD; 68.2 ± 8 non-PAD |
Shins, Feet | −1.25 °C (PAD) −0.15 (non-PAD) |
6MWD, ABI, SBP | [48] |
| Ilo et al. (2020) |
Observational study | Detection of PAD | I–II | 257 | 73 ± 10 PAD; 61 ± 18 non-PAD |
Feet | NA | ABI, TP | [32] |
| Ilo et al. (2021) |
Nonrandomized | Assessment after revascularization | I–III | 54 | 72 ± 10 treated;75 ± 8 control | Feet | +0.5 °C (treated) −0.3 °C (nontreated) −0.2 °C (control) |
ABI, TP | [33] |
| Manfredini et al. (2021) | Study protocol | Assessment after exercise program | II | 60 | >60 | Feet | NA | 6MWD, ABI, QoL, 5TSTS | [38] |
| Radvanský et al. (2022) |
Commentary | Detection of PAD | NA | NA | NA | Feet | NA | NA | [2] |
| Renero-Carrillo et al. (2021) | Nonrandomized | Assessment after revascularization | NA | 2 | 60.5 (55–66) | Feet | +6 °C (treated) −0.7 °C (nontreated) |
PPG | [35] |
| Staffa et al. (2016) |
Nonrandomized | Assessment after revascularization | I–III | 41 | 60.2 ± 18 PAD; 55.6 ± 18 non-PAD |
Feet | +0.4 °C (treated) −0.5 °C (nontreated) |
ABI | [34] |
| Uchikawa et al. (1992) | Observational study | Assessment after pharmacological therapy | II | 10 | 51 (36–68) | Feet | +3.3 °C (average) +4.4 °C (lowest) |
NA | [43] |
| Urabe et al. (1993) | Randomized | Assessment after pharmacological therapy | II | 20 | 65.6 ± 2.3 | Legs | +0.2 °C | Walking distance, Lac, PPG | [45] |
| Wallace et al. (2018) |
Case report | Assessment of peripheral perfusion | I-IV | 23 | 66 (30–76) | Feet | NA | ABI | [37] |
| Wang et al. (2004) |
Observational study | Assessment of peripheral perfusion | NA | 7 | NA | Ankle, Feet | NA | NA | [44] |
| Zenunaj et al. (2021) |
Observational study | Assessment after revascularization | II-IV | 40 | 76 ± 11 | Ankle, Feet | +2.1 °C (lowest) +0.5 °C (highest) |
ABI | [39] |
PAD: peripheral arterial disease; Lac: lactate levels; PPG: plethysmography; IRT: infrared thermography; ABI: ankle-brachial index; 6MWD: six-minute walking distance; QoL: quality of life; 5TSTS: 5-times sit-to-stand test; NA: not available; SD: spectral Doppler; TP: toe pressure; LDBF: laser Doppler blood flowmetry; SBP: segmental blood pressure; EMS: muscle electro stimulation; ACD: absolute claudication distance; DM: diabetes mellitus.