Literature DB >> 10189538

Possible sources of discrepancies in the use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Impact on prevalence of insensate foot and workload requirements.

M McGill1, L Molyneaux, R Spencer, L F Heng, D K Yue.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different testing sites and buckling strengths on the sensitivity and specificity of using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament to detect patients with insensate foot. The impact on workload required to educate and follow up these high-risk individuals was estimated by modeling in our patient population with a documented status of neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the 5.07/10-g monofilament, one observer tested 132 randomly selected subjects with diabetes at five sites on the right foot. The sensitivity and specificity of each site and combinations of sites in detecting vibration perception threshold > 40 was calculated. In addition, two monofilaments, one with a buckling force of 5 g and the other with a force of 15 g, were compared by testing 200 randomly selected patients. An estimate of the prevalence of insensate foot and workload was made by modeling the findings to the 5,270 patients with neuropathy status registered on our computerized database.
RESULTS: Specificity of the 5.07/10-g monofilament to detect insensate foot at each of the five sites is high, at approximately 90%, but there is considerably more variation and lower sensitivity, ranging from 44-71%. Data derived from the use of different combinations of sites showed that more stringent criteria are associated with lower sensitivity but higher specificity. If the foot is considered insensate when either of sites 3 and 4 (plantar aspect of the first and fifth metatarsal heads, respectively) cannot feel the monofilament, there is reasonable sensitivity and specificity (80-86%, respectively). By modeling on our diabetes center population, it can be demonstrated that the choice of different methodologies leads to different conclusions about the prevalence of severe neuropathy, ranging from 3.4 to 29.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of sites 3 and 4 for monofilament testing gives a reasonable compromise for time, sensitivity, and specificity. Minor changes in sensitivity and specificity can lead to major changes in the prevalence of neuropathy, with implications for workload.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10189538     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.22.4.598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  12 in total

1.  Weight-Bearing Exercise and Foot Health in Native Americans.

Authors:  Elena Cuaderes; Lise DeShea; W Lyndon Lamb
Journal:  Care Manag J       Date:  2014-12

2.  Peripheral insensate neuropathy-is height a risk factor?

Authors:  G S Sharath Kote; Ajay N Bhat; Thajuddeen K; Mohammed H Ismail; Abhishek Gupta
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2012-12-24

Review 3.  Diabetic foot ulcers. Pathophysiology, assessment, and therapy.

Authors:  C K Bowering
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Screening patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration: a comparison between measurement of vibration perception threshold and 10-g monofilament test.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Richard; Lise Reilhes; Stéphanie Buvry; Monique Goletto; Jean-Luc Faillie
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Threshold for detection of diabetic peripheral sensory neuropathy using a range of research grade monofilaments in persons with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Mary P Thomson; Julia Potter; Paul M Finch; Richard B Paisey
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Peripheral neuropathy defined by monofilament insensitivity and diabetes status: NHANES 1999-2004.

Authors:  Jodie G Katon; Gayle E Reiber; Karin M Nelson
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Potential mediators of diabetes-related hearing impairment in the U.S. population: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004.

Authors:  Kathleen E Bainbridge; Yiling J Cheng; Catherine C Cowie
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Predictors of diabetic foot and leg ulcers in a developing country with a rapid increase in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Kumarasinghe A Sriyani; Sudharshani Wasalathanthri; Priyadharshika Hettiarachchi; Shamini Prathapan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effect of duration and amplitude of direct current when lidocaine is delivered by iontophoresis.

Authors:  Susan A Saliba; Courtney L Teeter-Heyl; Patrick McKeon; Christopher D Ingeroll; Ethan N Saliba
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 6.321

10.  Identification, prevalence, and treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy in patients from a rural area in South Carolina.

Authors:  Jimmy Pruitt; Carolina Moracho-Vilrriales; Tiffaney Threatt; Sarah Wagner; Jun Wu; E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 3.133

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.