Although the diagnosis of a diabetic foot infection is made based on clinical symptoms and signs, we also use blood laboratory, microbiological and radiological studies to make treatment decisions. All of these diagnostic studies have pitfalls that can lead to a delay in diagnosis. Such delays will likely lead to further tissue damage and to a higher chance of amputation. One of these pitfalls is that some clinicians rely on microbiological, rather than clinical data, to diagnose infection. Though subjective by nature, clinical signs predict outcome of foot infections accurately. Another pitfall is that microbiological data can be misleading. All wounds harbour microorganisms; therefore, a positive wound culture does not mean that a wound is infected. Furthermore, the outcome of cultures of wound swabs does not correlate well with culture results of tissue biopsies. Therapy guidance by wound swab will likely lead to overtreatment of non-pathogenic organisms. Genotyping might have a role in identifying previously unrecognized (combinations of) pathogens in diabetic foot infection, bacteria in sessile phenotype and non-culturable pathogens, e.g. in cases where antibiotics have already been administered. One more pitfall is that the diagnosis of osteomyelitis remains difficult. Although the result of percutaneous bone biopsy is the reference standard for osteomyelitis, some other diagnostic modalities can aid in the diagnosis. A combination of several of these diagnostic tests is probably a good strategy to achieve a higher diagnostic accuracy. Relying on a single test will likely lead to misidentification of patients with osteomyelitis with associated overtreatment and undertreatment. Copyright