David S Oyer1, David Saxon, Ajul Shah. 1. Department of Clinical Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clanging tuning fork (CTF) test, a novel method for using the C 128-Hz tuning fork to test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of this technique, and to compare it with the 5.07 (10 g) Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test. METHODS: To determine the mean and standard deviation for the CTF test, repeated measurements were taken on one toe of 12 patients with diabetes during one visit. After these tests, 30 randomly selected patients were tested on both feet, with right and left scores compared for reproducibility of the results. The scores of the CTF test were compared with the monofilament scores in 45 patients with diabetes. Presence of foot ulcers in 81 patients was correlated with both test scores. RESULTS: The mean duration of vibration sensation was 10.2 seconds, with a standard deviation of +/-1.3 seconds. The Pearson correlation coefficient comparing the right and the left foot scores for the same patient was 0.947 (P<0.05). Among patients with 8 seconds or less of vibration perception, results of monofilament testing were abnormal only in those whose vibration perception was less than or equal to 4 seconds. Of 32 patients with vibration perception of 4 seconds or less, 50% had normal monofilament test scores, including 29% of 17 patients with absent vibratory sensation. CONCLUSION: The CTF test is reproducible and accurate. It provides a quantitative assessment of DPN and can document severe neuropathy, even in the presence of a normal result with the 10-g monofilament test. The risk of foot ulcers, which is associated with diminished vibratory sensation, can therefore be detected earlier and more accurately with the CTF test. The CTF test should replace the 10-g monofilament test as the recommended technique for detection of DPN.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clanging tuning fork (CTF) test, a novel method for using the C 128-Hz tuning fork to test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of this technique, and to compare it with the 5.07 (10 g) Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test. METHODS: To determine the mean and standard deviation for the CTF test, repeated measurements were taken on one toe of 12 patients with diabetes during one visit. After these tests, 30 randomly selected patients were tested on both feet, with right and left scores compared for reproducibility of the results. The scores of the CTF test were compared with the monofilament scores in 45 patients with diabetes. Presence of foot ulcers in 81 patients was correlated with both test scores. RESULTS: The mean duration of vibration sensation was 10.2 seconds, with a standard deviation of +/-1.3 seconds. The Pearson correlation coefficient comparing the right and the left foot scores for the same patient was 0.947 (P<0.05). Among patients with 8 seconds or less of vibration perception, results of monofilament testing were abnormal only in those whose vibration perception was less than or equal to 4 seconds. Of 32 patients with vibration perception of 4 seconds or less, 50% had normal monofilament test scores, including 29% of 17 patients with absent vibratory sensation. CONCLUSION: The CTF test is reproducible and accurate. It provides a quantitative assessment of DPN and can document severe neuropathy, even in the presence of a normal result with the 10-g monofilament test. The risk of foot ulcers, which is associated with diminished vibratory sensation, can therefore be detected earlier and more accurately with the CTF test. The CTF test should replace the 10-g monofilament test as the recommended technique for detection of DPN.
Authors: Alex Donaghy; Trina DeMott; Lara Allet; Hogene Kim; James Ashton-Miller; James K Richardson Journal: PM R Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Susan L Murphy; James K Richardson; Jennifer Blackwood; Beanna Martinez; Elliot B Tapper Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Paolo Caserotti; Jane A Cauley; Robert M Boudreau; Bret H Goodpaster; Aaron I Vinik; Anne B Newman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Aging Dis Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 6.745
Authors: Jigar Gosalia; Polly S Montgomery; Shangming Zhang; William A Pomilla; Ming Wang; Menglu Liang; Anna Csiszar; Zoltan Ungvari; Andriy Yabluchanskiy; David N Proctor; Andrew W Gardner Journal: Geroscience Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 7.581
Authors: Vikas Kotagal; Roger L Albin; Martijn L T M Müller; Robert A Koeppe; Kirk A Frey; Nicolaas I Bohnen Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Amanda Kyle Scofield; Lida Radfar; John A Ice; Evan Vista; Juan-Manuel Anaya; Glen Houston; David Lewis; Donald U Stone; James Chodosh; Kimberly Hefner; Christopher J Lessard; Kathy L Moser; Robert Hal Scofield Journal: J Clin Rheumatol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.517