Literature DB >> 11213874

Simple screening tests for peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic.

B A Perkins1, D Olaleye, B Zinman, V Bril.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The utility of rapid and reliable sensory tests appropriate for the diagnosis of neuropathy in the diabetes clinic, rather than as prognostic tools for the prediction of foot complications, has been unclear because of limitations inherent in previous studies. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend annual screening for neuropathy, they are unable to support specific recommendations for screening maneuvers because of a lack of evidence for the validity of screening tests in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to assess the operating characteristics of four simple sensory screening maneuvers as compared with standardized electrophysiological tests in the diagnosis of distal symmetrical polyneuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We assessed four simple tests (the 10-g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination [SWME], superficial pain sensation, vibration testing by the on-off method, and vibration testing by the timed method) in 478 subjects with independent blinded evaluations compared against the criterion standard of nerve conduction studies. We present receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and sensitivity and specificity values for each test.
RESULTS: The four simple screening maneuvers reveal similar operating characteristics. Cutoff points by ROC curve analyses reveal that a positive or abnormal test is represented by five incorrect responses of eight stimuli applied. A negative or normal test is represented by one or fewer incorrect responses of eight stimuli applied. By these criteria, the point estimates of the positive likelihood ratios for vibration testing by the on-off method, vibration testing by the timed method, the SWME, and superficial pain sensation test are 26.6, 18.5, 10.2, and 9.2, respectively. The point estimates of the negative likelihood ratios are 0.33, 0.51, 0.34, and 0.50, respectively The screening tests showed comparable sensitivity and specificity results. The 10-g SWME, superficial pain test, and vibration testing by the on-off method are rapid, each requiring approximately 60 s to administer. The timed vibration test takes longer, and the interpretation is more complicated. The combination of two simple tests (e.g., the 10-g SWME and vibration testing by the on-off method) does not add value to each individual screening test.
CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening for diabetic neuropathy should be conducted using superficial pain sensation testing, SWME, or vibration testing by the on-off method. The reported operating characteristics for each sensory modality can be applied to positive findings on the physical examination of individual patients to predict the likelihood of neuropathy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11213874     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.24.2.250

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


  129 in total

1.  Subclinical diabetic neuropathy with normal conventional electrophysiological study.

Authors:  Jong Seok Bae; Byoung Joon Kim
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Managing preexisting diabetes for pregnancy: summary of evidence and consensus recommendations for care.

Authors:  John L Kitzmiller; Jennifer M Block; Florence M Brown; Patrick M Catalano; Deborah L Conway; Donald R Coustan; Erica P Gunderson; William H Herman; Lisa D Hoffman; Maribeth Inturrisi; Lois B Jovanovic; Siri I Kjos; Robert H Knopp; Martin N Montoro; Edward S Ogata; Pathmaja Paramsothy; Diane M Reader; Barak M Rosenn; Alyce M Thomas; M Sue Kirkman
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 3.  Accuracy of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jacquelien Dros; Astrid Wewerinke; Patrick J Bindels; Henk C van Weert
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  The leaf plot: a novel way of presenting the value of tests.

Authors:  Malcolm G Coulthard; Tom Coulthard
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Diagnosis and management of diabetic neuropathy.

Authors:  Bruce A Perkins; Vera Bril
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.810

6.  Comparison of different screening tests for diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Primary Health Care setting.

Authors:  Metab Al-Geffari
Journal:  Int J Health Sci (Qassim)       Date:  2012-06

7.  Quadriceps strength, quadriceps power, and gait speed in older U.S. adults with diabetes mellitus: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2002.

Authors:  Rita Rastogi Kalyani; Yolande Tra; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Josephine M Egan; Luigi Ferrucci; Frederick L Brancati
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Prediction of incident diabetic neuropathy using the monofilament examination: a 4-year prospective study.

Authors:  Bruce A Perkins; Andrej Orszag; Mylan Ngo; Eduardo Ng; Patti New; Vera Bril
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Reliability and validity of the modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score in diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy.

Authors:  V Bril; S Tomioka; R A Buchanan; B A Perkins
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.359

10.  Large-fiber dysfunction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy is predicted by cardiovascular risk factors.

Authors:  Jackie Elliott; Solomon Tesfaye; Nish Chaturvedi; Rajiv A Gandhi; Lynda K Stevens; Celia Emery; John H Fuller
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 17.152

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.