Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE and LILACS databases of published observational studies in LAC up to December 2020. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using random-effects models using Stata Program 15.1. Heterogeneity was evaluated through sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Evidence certainty was performed with the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies from eight countries were included. The estimated prevalence of DPN was 46.5% (95%CI: 38.0-55.0) with a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.2%; p<0.01). Only two studies reported incidence, and the pooled effect size was 13.7% (95%CI: 10.6-17.2). We found an increasing trend of cumulative DPN prevalence over time. The main sources of heterogeneity associated with higher prevalence were diagnosis criteria, higher A1c (%), and inadequate sample size. We judge the included evidence as very low certainty.
CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of DPN is high in LAC with significant heterogeneity between and within countries that could be explained by population type and methodological aspects. Significant gaps (e.g., under-representation of most countries, lack of incidence studies, and heterogenous case definition) were identified. Standardized and population-based studies of DPN in LAC are needed.

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an important global health issue. Around 425 million people worldwide are suffering from this disease, and this number is expected to rise to 628 million people by 2045 [1]. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the most prevalent complication of diabetes mellitus [2]. The prevalence of DPN ranges from 21.3 to 34.5% in type 2 DM (T2DM) [3-6] and between seven to 34.2% in type 1 DM (T1DM) [7-10]. Of these, up to 45% of patients with type 2 DM and 54% with type 1 DM could be asymptomatic [1, 11].

DPN refers to disorders affecting the peripheral nervous system [12]. The most common presentation is distal symmetric polyneuropathy, typically associated with numbness, tingling [13], pain [14], or weakness [15] that begins in the feet and spread proximally in a stocking distribution [1, 16]. DPN is a leading cause of worldwide disability [15], and it affects the quality of life due to chronic pain, high risk of falls [17], foot ulceration [18], and limb amputation [19]. Furthermore, DPN symptoms often lead to sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression [20, 21]. The poor glycemic control causing hyperglycemia and microangiopathy is the common underlying pathophysiology. However, other factors are involved in the neuropathy progression, such as modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, including dyslipidemia, smoking, and hypertension [22]; consequently, public health strategies could be implemented to reduce the disease frequency. Despite DPN’s importance, effective screening methods are lacking, which results in a diagnostic delay of DPN [23, 24], hence producing heterogeneous epidemiological estimates between regions.

A systematic assessment of the DPN distribution and its epidemiological features is crucial to develop public health interventions to control the disease; however, few studies have performed a systematic literature review on the topic [12, 25–27]. A small subset used meta-analytic methods to assess the heterogeneity of the DPN epidemiology [25-27], and none of them use evidence certainty assessment to critically evaluate the body of evidence. To our knowledge, no previous studies have addressed this question in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), a region with mainly developing countries where access to healthcare could influence the adequate glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors of people with diabetes mellitus, and thus affecting the DPN epidemiology. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence of DPN in LAC, assess the evidence certainty of the estimates, and use meta-analytic techniques to explore their heterogeneity sources. This is a necessary starting point in discussing the prevention and diagnosis gaps of DPN in this region.

Materials and methods

We guided this protocol by the guidelines of the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) and some recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [28, 29] (. The study protocol has been registered at PROSPERO, number CRD42019148273 [30].

Eligibility criteria

We defined DPN as symmetrical sensorimotor polyneuropathy caused by metabolic and microvascular alterations, such as chronic hyperglycemia exposure and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with DM.

Articles were included if they met the following criteria: (a) studies reported their outcome variable as prevalence or incidence of DPN in the LAC population. We also consider Diabetes complications that included a description of DPN. We included both T1DM and T2 DM, as well as mixed population studies, due to the reported difficulties for a correct diagnostic differentiation in the region (unavailability of T1DM-specific antibodies tests, T2DM predominance, and new DM subtypes/phenotypes) (ref), and potential risk of diagnosis overlap [31, 32] (b) peer-reviewed journal articles (c) any language (d) cross-sectional or cohort studies (e) diagnosis with at least two physical tests (f) any time of publication. We excluded: (a) another kind of neuropathy such as carpal tunnel syndrome, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, cranial neuropathy (b) subsequent stages of diabetes mellitus such as diabetic foot or need for hospitalization; (c) unclear peripheric neuropathic criteria (d) cases report, case series, case-control study.

Literature search and study selection

We carried out a systematic search in five databases: Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scielo. As recommended by Cochrane collaboration, we included additional relevant articles from other sources via a hand search of grey literature and other related articles due to the low rate of database indexation of regional journals [33].

We performed our database searches on October 15th, 2019, and updated this search on December 14th, 2020, to find additional eligible studies to be included. Our search strategy included Medical Subject Title (MeSH) terms and free-text terms such as "diabetic neuropathies," "prevalence," "incidence," and "Latin-America." Boolean operators like "AND" and "OR" were used to combine search terms. We include observational studies without restrictions regarding language. The complete search strategy is available in the .

According to the inclusion criteria, two independent authors (MMY and MOF) selected articles by titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant articles. One of the authors (MMY) handled the duplicates. Lastly, the same authors accessed the full-text articles and evaluated their eligibility for inclusion. A third author (MYA) addressed the missing data and resolved discrepancies by discussion and consensus. The complete list of excluded articles at this full-text stage is available in .

Data extraction

Two independent researchers (MOF and MYA) extracted the following information from each of the included studies into a Microsoft Excel sheet: author, year of publication, country, design, center, type of population, sex, range age, diabetes time, setting, diagnostic type, sample size, and reported prevalence. A third author (AHR) checked that the data was correct. Only, we included the most recent or complete publication when we identified studies with the same population. In case any study showed more than one prevalence by different methods, we choose the prevalence with the highest performance.

Considering the heterogenous DPN definition, we extracted the case definitions from each included study. Then, we established the DPN diagnosis according to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert group’s definitions: (a) confirmed DPN (abnormal nerve conduction and a symptom or sign of neuropathy), (b) probable DPN (a combination of symptoms and signs of neuropathy), (c) possible DPN (any symptoms or signs) and (d) subclinical DPN (no signs or symptoms of neuropathy with abnormal nerve conduction test or a validated measure of small fiber neuropathy [34]).

Risk of bias assessment

Two researchers (MYA and MOF) evaluated the methodological quality of the prevalence studies according to the questionnaire developed by Loney et al. [35], a third author (AHR) settled in case of doubt. Eight criteria were evaluated and scored with one point if it existed: (a) random sample or whole population; (b) an unbiased sampling frame (i.e., census data); (c) adequate sample size > 323 subjects, considering the prevalence of DPN of 30% according to Sun et al. [27], 5% alpha, and 80% of power; (d) measures were performed with the diagnostic standard for diabetic neuropathy (clinical and electromyography assessment); (e) outcomes were measured by the unbiased assessor; (f) reasonable response rate (>70%) and refusers described; (g) confidence intervals and subgroup analysis were described; and (h) participants’ characteristics were described. We calculated the total score for each study (score range 0–8). We considered a quality score of 0–2 as very low, 3–4 as low, 5–6 as moderate, and a score of 7–8 as high. Cohort studies were evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). This tool consists of 8 items grouped into three main components: selection, comparability, and outcome [36].

Statistical analyses

We calculated the pooled DPN prevalence with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), expressed as the percentage of diabetic patients with DPN. We used the Freeman-Tukey Double Arcsine transformation to stabilize the proportion variances before performing the pooled analysis [37]. According to the high expected between-study heterogeneity, a prespecified random-effects model performed the meta-analysis due to the DerSimonian, and Laird method [38], and 95% CI calculation were based on the exact method [39]. We assessed the presence of between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q chi-square statistics and quantified using the I2 statistical test. [40, 41]. The I2 statistic was calculated only in a subgroup of four or more included studies, as recommended by previous studies [42-44], due to the underestimation of heterogeneity in small meta-analyses. For meta-analysis with less than four included studies, we assessed between studies heterogeneity visually, looking at the confidence intervals overlap. For studies with four or more included studies, an I2 value> 75% was interpreted as high heterogeneity [45], to assess the trend of the pooled DPN estimate across time, we performed and plotted a random-effects cumulative meta-analysis based on the publication year of each included study.

To evaluate the sources of heterogeneity among the primary studies, we carried out subgroups analysis according to country, population type, diabetes type, age group, time of diabetes, and the Toronto DPN Study Group criteria. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess the estimates’ robustness by evaluating the influence of any individual study and important methodological variables: type of design, sampling, type of recollection, blind evaluation, size sample, and quality score.

Additionally, we conducted univariate random-effects meta-regression to test study level moderators of the DPN prevalence [46]. We based our analysis on the Thompson and Higgins recommendations [47]. Each moderator was tested on a minimum of eight included studies in the meta-analysis [47]. We used an entry criterion of p = 0.2 for independent variables. We set a high p-value to reduce the risk of omitting potential confounders variables. We used a step-down method to build the multivariate model. To select the best model, we assessed the residual percentage of variation due to heterogeneity (I2, Tau2) and the proportion of between-study variance explained (adjusted R2), in addition to the significant criterion of p<0.05 per each moderator. We used these covariates as follows: age, time of diabetes, A1C, year of publication, sample size, type of DPN according to the Toronto criteria, and quality score. We performed a Monte Carlo permutation test to account for high false-positive rates associated with meta-regression models (i.e., repeated random sampling) using 10,000 random permutations.

Furthermore, we assessed publication bias by visual inspection of a funnel plot of the standard error. We performed the Egger’s regression test and the trim and fill method for publication bias, calculating the linear estimator [48]. We performed all statistical analyses using STATA 15.

Geographical assessment

We showed the geographical representation of the prevalence estimates and each country’s research production using a map downloaded from https://yourfreetemplates.com/ with Attribution-No-Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) Creative Commons’ license.

Evidence certainty assessment

We assessed the certainty of our DPN prevalence and incidence estimates in LAC using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach [49]. We based this critical appraisal on five domains: study limitations (risk of bias of the studies included), imprecision (sample sizes and CI), indirectness (generalizability), inconsistency (heterogeneity), and publication bias, as stated in the GRADE handbook [50]. We adapted the assessment to prevalence estimates. The evidence’s certainty was characterized as high, moderate, low, or very low [49]. The results were reported as a summary of findings table (SoF), adapted manually from the GRADE online tool (http://gradepro.org).

Results

Search results

We identified 2180 titles, 1903 during the initial search, 13 titles for expert recommendation from manual search, and 164 from the second search with publication purposes. A total of 70 full-text studies were read and assessed. After applying the pre-defined criteria, we excluded forty-one studies (. Finally, we included twenty-nine studies in the final analysis [51-79]. shows a flow chart to illustrate the process of article selection and inclusion in the study.

Study characteristics

We included 28 studies with 8139 subjects for DPN prevalence (, and included two studies for DPN incidence. Cardoso et al. study was used in both frequencies (.

Brazil had the most scientific production with fourteen studies [53, 55–58, 60, 61, 64–66, 71, 72], Mexico with seven [52, 54, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74], Peru with four [59, 69, 74, 77], and Cuba [51], Uruguay [63], and Ecuador with one study [62] (. Regarding DM type, 22 studies included type 2 DM [52–57, 59–62, 66, 68–78], three type 1 DM [58, 65, 67] and three in both types of DM [51, 63, 64], presenting combined prevalence. In twenty-one studies, patients were recruited from reference hospitals [51, 54–59, 61, 63–67, 69, 70, 72–74], four from primary care [52, 53, 60, 68], and three from the general population [62, 71, 75]. According to the onset of DM, one study was made with newly detected DM (debut) [61], nine with DM patients with more than 5 years of illness [51, 56, 65, 68–70, 72, 77, 78], six with more than 10 years of disease [53, 57, 64, 66, 73, 74], and eleven did not specify any time [52, 54, 55, 58–60, 62, 63, 71, 75, 76].

Prevalence of DPN in LAC: Characteristics and geographic location of included studies.

N, number of studies; P, pooled prevalence (percentage); S, cumulative sample size. DPN: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean.

There were several methods for DPN diagnosis, we classified in four groups: a) >2 clinical signs, including nine studies [48, 49, 54, 56, 58, 64, 71, 72, 75]; b) >2 clinical signs and symptoms, including 14 studies [50, 52, 53, 57, 59–61, 63, 65, 66, 68–70]; c) >2 clinical signs + nerve conduction test (NCT), including one study [55]; and d) only NCT or sudomotor disfunction test, including four studies [51, 62, 67, 74]. According to Toronto Study Group, one study included confirmed DPN cases [55], 20 included probable DPN cases [48–50, 52–54, 57, 59–61, 63–66, 68–73, 75], three studies included possible DPN [56, 58, 72], and four included subclinical DPN [51, 62, 67, 74].

Risk of bias of included studies

The quality score range of the prevalence studies of DPN was from two to eight. There was one study of very low quality [50], 14 clinical studies were of low quality [48, 51, 54, 55, 60–62, 64, 66–69, 71, 72], eight studies were of moderate quality [49, 52, 53, 57, 74, 75], and seven studies were of high quality [56, 58, 59, 63, 65, 70, 73]. The two studies included for incidence obtained a score of six according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale [53, 76] (.

Pooled estimates and cumulative meta-analysis

We found a pooled DPN prevalence in LAC of 46.5% (95% CI: 38.0 to 55.0) in 28 studies. Significant heterogeneity was identified among studies (I = 98.24%, p < 0.001) (. All these studies reported point prevalence data. Only two studies from Brazil and Chile reported incidence estimates, and we found DPN incidence of 13.7 (95% CI: 10.6–17.2) I2: Not calculated [56, 79] (.

The cumulative meta-analysis revealed that the pooled estimate changed over time as each study is added to the pool. We found an overall positive trend of the DPN prevalence and reduction of the estimation precision, from 40.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 49.5) in 1984 to 45.8 (95% CI: 38 to 54) in 2020. The smallest pooled estimate was 29.6% (95% CI: 23 to 36) in 2009 and the highest was 49.5% (95% CI: 40% to 58%) in 2018 (.

Subgroup analysis

We stratified the studies according to country, age group, population, number of health centers, diabetes type, diabetes time, primary outcome, and DPN Toronto criteria. Mexico and Cuba had the highest estimated prevalence of 68,7% (95% CI: 55.1 to 80.8) and 60,2% (95% CI: 53.5 to 66.7), respectively; while Brazil had the lowest estimated prevalence (33.1%, 95% CI: 24.8to 40.8) (. The subgroup analysis for the type of DM showed no differences (heterogeneity test between-groups, p = 0.53) among patients with type 1 DM (54.8%, 95% CI: 30.8 to 77.7) compared to type 2 DM (44.8%, 95% CI: 35.4 to 54.4). Also, the DPN prevalence was higher (heterogeneity test between-groups, p<0.001) when the duration of DM was greater than ten years (72,9%; 95% CI: 58.1 to 84.7) compared to debut DM 25.7% (95% CI: 17.9 to 34.7). According to DPN Toronto criteria subgroups, the subclinical DPN had higher prevalence estimates (78,8%; 95% CI: 57.8 to 94.0, heterogeneity test between-groups, p<0.001) compared to possible DPN (23.8%; 95% CI: 11.1 to 39.5) (. There were no significant differences in the estimates of DPN prevalence according to age group and number of health centers included in .

Sensitivity analysis

By removing individual studies excluding each study, the pooled prevalence of DPN varied from 46.4% (95% CI: 38.3 to 54.5) to 50.0% (95% CI: 40.9 to 59.1). Our analysis shows no influence of a single study on the pooled estimate’s direction or magnitude (. The study’s quality revealed that the DPN prevalence was higher in moderate-quality studies 49.6% (95% CI: 26.1 to 73.28), while for high-quality studies was lower 42,1% (95% CI: 32.6 to 52.0). The results were similar for studies with a sample size of less than 323; higher prevalence was found in studies with a small sample size (54.8%; 95% CI: 42.5 to 66.9) compared to large sample size (30.3%; 95% CI: 20.5 to 41.1) (.

Meta-regression analysis

The univariate meta-regression models showed significant association of A1c hemoglobin (%) with DPN prevalence (b = 0.2; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.37; p = 0.04) and explained 49.69% (by adjusted R2) of the variance. This value represents a prevalence increase of 2% by one unit increase of A1c hemoglobin in the included studies. Besides, the studies with DPN prevalence as primary outcome (no focusing on broad range of DM complications) reported lower estimates (b = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.06; p = 0.18; R2 = 3.85%), and the studies with subclinical DPN patients (based on Toronto criteria) reported higher prevalence (b = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.84; p = 0.003; R2 = 32.8%). There was no association with age, time of diabetes, year of publication, sample size, and quality score (). The multivariate model with Monte-Carlo permutations showed a significant association of the subclinical DPN category, namely, the studies with patients in this category reported higher estimates (b = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.79; p = 0.008) compared to the others definitions, adjusted by sample size, and studies with DPN as the primary outcome. The multivariate model explained 38.1% of the prevalence variance. Unfortunately, we could not include A1c hemoglobin in this model due to the small number of studies reporting this value.

Publication bias

The visual inspection of the funnel plot showed asymmetrical distribution, which indicated the presence of publication bias. ( This finding was corroborated by Egger’s test (p = 0.010). From the trim and fill model, nine studies were imputed based on a linear trimming estimator (, the filled random-effects meta-analysis calculated a pooled prevalence of 31.1% (95% CI: 22.6 to 39.5).

Funnel plot of the overall prevalence of DPN in the 25 included studies.

A. Classic Funnel Plot. B. Funnel plot with trimmed studies.

Evidence certainty

We judged the certainty of the available evidence as very low. We started the evaluation with low certainty because only three population-based studies were included. We downgraded, according to the high risk of bias of the included studies (46% of the studies had a low and very-low quality by Loney’s scale). Besides, we downgraded the evidence body due to publication bias and high inconsistency (I2 was >60%) in the meta-analysis (.

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the overall prevalence of DPN in LAC was 46.5% (95%CI: 38.0 to 55.0; I2 = 98.2%, p < 0.01), and the incidence (from two studies) was 13.7% (95% CI: 10.6 to 17.2; I2 = Not calculated). We found an increasing trend of cumulative DPN prevalence over time. The main sources of heterogeneity associated with higher prevalence were: i) factors related to the included population (the diagnosis criteria such as subclinical DPN, the higher duration of diabetes mellitus, and the higher percentage of glycosylated hemoglobin); and factors related to the methodology of included studies (high risk of bias and sample size). Based on the high heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and publication bias, we judge the included evidence as very low certainty.

Our results showed that the prevalence of DPN in LAC is similar to the estimates from Iran and Africa, with 53% (95% CI: 41 to 65) and 46% (95% CI: 36.21 to 55.78), respectively [25, 26]. Nonetheless, our finding is higher than the global prevalence, which was estimated as 35.78% (95% CI: 27.86 to 44.55; I2 = 99%, p <0.001) and 30% (95% CI: 25 to 34; I2 = 99.5%, p <0.001) [80, 27]. Additionally, we found a positive trend of cumulative DPN prevalence over time from 1984 to 2019. This difference and increasing pattern could be explained by better prevention strategies implemented in developed countries [26]. It is worth mentioning that Sun et al. meta-analysis did not include studies from LAC, while Souza et al. only included two studies from this region [27, 80]. Therefore, to our knowledge, this is the first study synthesizing the DPN epidemiological estimates from LAC.

Published data of well-designed studies about DPN incidence are limited in the world, especially in LAC [81]. We included two studies that reported DPN incidence in T2DM, from Brazil and Chile (11.9% and 54.8%, respectively) [53, 79]. Compared to a prospective study conducted on the American population with T1DM, our results are significantly lower (13.7% versus 30%) [82]. However, these results are not comparable due to the different types of diabetes mellitus included in both studies. Therefore, more population-based cohorts are needed to determine the incidence of DPN in LAC.

Sources of heterogeneity

The prevalence of DPN varied from 13% to 97% in the included studies. This values aligned with Sobhani et al. and Shiferaw et al. meta-analyses, who attributed this variation to the different diagnostic criteria of DPN used in the studies [25, 26]. In this review, we used the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert group’s definitions to evaluate DPN diagnosis, which classified DPN as confirmed (abnormal nerve conduction and a symptom or sign of neuropathy); probable (a combination of symptoms and signs of neuropathy); possible DPN (any symptoms or signs); and subclinical (no signs or symptoms of neuropathy with abnormal nerve conduction test) [35]. Interestingly, we found that the highest pooled DPN prevalence was observed from studies that used subclinical DPN criteria (78.8%; 95% CI: 57.83 to 94.03), and the lowest was observed with the possible DPN criteria (23.8%; 95%CI: 11.1 to 39.5). This disparity could result from a more precise diagnostic accuracy of the nerve conduction test, which is a requirement for subclinical criteria and could lead to a decrease in the likelihood of false-positive test results.

Besides, our multivariate meta-regression model results confirm that the main source of DPN prevalence heterogeneity is the used diagnostic criteria. This finding is consistent with Sun et al. [27], who found that unclear diagnosis was the only criteria associated with heterogeneity for DPN, obtaining an odds ratio of 2.92 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.25; p <0.05). Taking this into account, we excluded 11 studies that used an inadequate diagnostic method, such as only extracting the diagnosis from medical records, self-report diagnosis, and clinical examination without specifying which method was used. Moreover, we excluded nine studies with insufficient data on the diagnosis criteria. For instance, we excluded studies that relied on one sign in the physical examination and reported pain. Despite our efforts to clarify the diagnostic criteria and case definition, we also obtained a high heterogeneity associated with diagnostic criteria, although our pooled estimates could be considered more accurate than previous meta-analyses.

Additionally, the estimated DPN prevalence was higher in Mexico and Cuba, while Bra+zil had the lowest estimated prevalence. Poor glycemic control is shared among the LAC population and is illustrated in a study conducted in nine Latin American Countries, in which Mexico had a worse glycemic control than Brazil, measured by HbA1c > 7%, and this marker increased significantly with a longer duration of T2DM [83]; therefore, it is a significant risk factor for DPN [84]. These findings are also aligned with our subgroup and univariate meta-regression results showing that the duration of DM and percentage of glycosylated hemoglobin were associated with higher DPN prevalence. It is well-know that uncontrolled hyperglycemia (due to a poor glycemic control) leads to activation of different mechanisms, such as the polyol pathway, generation of AGEs (advanced glycation end-products) and ROS (reactive oxygen species), and activation of the protein kinase C (PKC) pathway [85]. These mechanisms play a significant role in the pathogenesis of DPN and exacerbate with worse glycemic control and longer duration of disease [86].

Regarding the DM type, due to the small number of studies on T1DM and its wide confidence interval, it is not possible to establish differences in prevalence between both types. Nonetheless, in a recent meta-analysis by Sun et al. [27], they found that patients with type T2DM presented a higher DPN prevalence than those with type T1DM. This disparity may be explained by the differences in the pathophysiology of DPN between both types. In T2DM, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and systemic inflammation are significant factors for DPN, which can develop before diabetes onset and diagnosis [16]. In contrast, T1DM onset is mostly correlated with the presentation of symptoms, caused primarily by insulin deficiency and hyperglycemia, which is why a tight glucose control could reduce the risk of DPN in T1DM, but not in T2DM [87].

Since we decided to included studies with mixed populations (T1DM or/and T2DM) in our overall pooled estimates in order to increase generalizability and to reduce the impact of potential diagnosis overlap between T1DM and T2DM, we performed a sensitivity analysis to explore heterogeneity, that showed non-important impact of T1DM population into the regional pooled estimates (likely owing to the small number of included studies and sample size), contrary to previous studies showing less prevalence of DPN in T1DM [81]. However, it is important to considering that current studies postulate that the diabetes mellitus classification is insufficient, and it has been suggested 5 phenotypes that would better explain the long-term results [88]. Moreover, the Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults (LADA) could simulates T2DM onset and turns to a total insulin deficiency in a short-term period [89], thus complicating the DM type differentiation Additionally, the unavailability of laboratory tests for T1DM-specific antibodies in LAC countries could hamper the correct diagnosis [32]. Therefore, it is important to increase the number and quality of the T1DM diabetes registries in LAC, to estimate a precise DPN prevalence in this population.

We found a significant methodological issue in the included papers. Less than half of the studies are considered moderate to high quality. Although, all the studies used a validated criterion for DNP screening and confirmation. Only ten used random sampling, 17 used a blind assessor, and only eight studies included the minimal sample size (323 DM patients) to detect the global prevalence (30%). Finally, only three studies recruited participants from population-based sources; therefore, our estimates are highly influenced by hospital-based participants. We reaffirmed the critical role of study quality in our subgroups and meta-regression analyses, the studies with low quality, small sample size, and those studies with different primary outcomes (different than the DPN estimation) reported higher DPN prevalence. Altogether, this methodological gap in LAC studies leads to the certainty of the evidence as very low; hence, we recommend standardization of these procedures in future studies to enhance the confidence on the DPN estimates from LAC and guide the public health interventions in each country.

Although a high heterogeneity is expected in a meta-analysis of prevalence studies [38], we identified several sources of heterogeneity and high variability. Therefore, within-study factors, such as setting (community versus hospital settings), sample characteristics, comorbidities, presence of cardiovascular risk factors, glycemic control, and used treatments, should be explored in future studies to understand the remaining variability. New longitudinal studies are needed to allow better comparisons between subgroups with specific characteristics over time.

Limitations and strengths

The present study has some limitations. We only identified studies from five countries, of a total of 33 countries in LAC. Moreover, most of the data was based on a hospital population, with limited general population participation. Therefore, the external validity of our estimates has to be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, although we have identified several heterogeneity sources of the pooled estimates, a large unresolved heterogeneity was found.

Nevertheless, our study has important strengths. It was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to incorporate all the studies involving LAC patients; therefore, we did not use any restriction by language or year of publication. Additionally, we used multiple meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the sources of heterogeneity of the DPN estimates. Moreover, we performed an exhaustive quality and certainty of the evidence assessment to identify gaps in the methodology of included studies, further to guide the design of future studies in the region.

Conclusions

This study revealed that the overall prevalence of DPN was relatively high in LAC countries compared to other regions, as almost half of DM patients presented DPN, although from very low evidence. The significant heterogeneity between and within countries could be explained by population type and methodological aspects. Significant gaps (e.g., under-representation of most countries, lack of incidence studies, and heterogenous case definition) were identified. We suggest DPN should be considered a public health matter in LAC, and health policies should focus on its early detection and prevention to reduce morbidity, impaired quality of life, and the healthcare costs associated with DPN. More population-based studies with better quality are required to evaluate the prevalence of DNP in LAC and its associated factors and the standardization of its evaluation to reduce heterogeneity.

Prisma checklist of items include reporting a systematic review.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Forest plot of incidence of DPN.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Forest plot according to country of DPN.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Forest plot according to type of DPN according to Toronto criteria.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Studies that were evaluated in full-text, and were excluded.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Quality assessment of prevalence studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Quality assessment of incidence studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-28188

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yovera-Aldana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Negida, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Abstract

1-PubMed is not a database; it is a search engine. You searched MEDLINE via PubMed.

2-Mention the used program for analysis

3-During reporting numbers with fractions or decimals, please use (.) not (,).

4-P-value here 48.5% (95%CI: 40.2-56.8; I2=97.94%; p<0.01) for heterogeneity or effect size?

Introduction

5-Well-written with clear rationale and objectives.

Methods

6- "A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to assess the prevalence of DPN in patients with DM." Please remove this sentence as it was already mentioned in the objectives.

7- In your protocol, you proposed to identify the prevalence and incidence of "painful" DPN in Latin America, while in the manuscript you aimed to identify the prevalence and incidence of DPN in Latin America and the Caribbean. Please mention this deviation in your manuscript or update the protocol.

8- The inclusion criteria of the population is not clear.

9- It's not clear to me why you excluded studies that reported some comorbidities such as diabetic foot?

10- Databases were searched one year ago, I strongly recommend re-searching the databases for any potential studies.

11- Did you plan to include case reports and case series? If not, please specify.

12- Two independent authors (MMY y MOF). You may mean (MMY and MOF).

13- Line 132: Data >> were not was

14- Please recheck these percentages "quantified using I2 statistical test considering that an I2 < 40% is low, 30-60% is moderate, 50-90% is substantial, and 75-100% is considerable heterogeneity"

15- Authors did not discussed who did they handle the duplicates and missing data.

Results

16- Line 213: There is no supplementary file 8, you may mean S2 Table?!

17- Line 248: It is 48.5% not 48,5%

18- Line 251: 11.9% not 11,9%. This should be addressed in the entire manuscript

19- I could not find S6 Table??!

20- The quality of the figures should be enhanced

21- Is there any explanation for this specific sample size (Sample size (>323) In the meta regression?

Discussion

22- Unresolved heterogeneity should be reported in the limitations.

23- In the conclusion, you have to mention that this is a very low evidence.

General comment

24- Please consider a language editing to eliminate any language mistakes

Reviewer #2: This is an important contribution as it is a systematic review and metanalysis of the incidence and prevalence of DPN in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region with an explosion of diabetes and its complications and as highlighted a real lack of quality data on DPN.

The methods employed for the SR and MA are appropriate.

It highlights the high prevalence of this often neglected complication of diabetes and highlights the lack of rigorous population based studies to define the prevalence of DPN in LAC and the Caribbean.

It also reflects the limited published data from the region and the wide ranging prevalence (13-93%) due to differing populations studied, especially those from secondary care (n=19/25) and the different definitions utilized to diagnose DPN.

Only one small study that assessed the incidence is noted.

It confirms the poor methods used to identify DPN with most studies only being able to identify probable DPN as they rely on symptoms and clinical deficits.

The title should include the word Caribbean.

What about painful DPN?

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is a systematic Review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and incidence of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (PDN) in Latina America and the Caribbean (LAC). The Authors demonstrated that in LAC there is a high (49.5%) prevalence of PDN, a significant health issue. Furthermore, the Authors identify significant heterogeneity between and within country. The results are convincing and indicated several gaps, including under-representation and lack of incidence study and the need for standardized and population based DPN studies in LAC. The statistical analysis methods used are rigorous and appropriate.

Minor points:

1) The Authors could provide more evidence and details on why they included papers regarding studies diabetes type I or both diabetes type II and type I. Diabetes type I and II have different pathophysiology, age of onset etc. Hence it is important to justify their choice or remove these studies (in total 5, 3 type I and 2 both Type1 and 2) from the analysis. Furthermore, the numbers for diabetes type I are too to make any conclusion about the differences in prevalence between the 2 types.

2) The Authors should better justify why they included additional records identified through other sources (Fig 1).

3) Given that neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has a great impact on quality of life and health costs, it would be helpful if the Authors could analyze the data separately for painful vs non-painful diabetic neuropathy in this study or in future studies.

4) The Authors should consider to add Fig S1 as one of the main figures of the manuscript and not as supplemental figure. The map gives an immediate view of the countries in within LAC where studies were identified. As stated and discussed by the Authors studies were identified only in 5 countries of the 33 countries in LAC.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rayaz Ahmed Malik

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Jan 2021

RESPONSE TO DECISION LETTER:

Paper ID: PONE-D-20-28188R1

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

************************************************************************************

Reviewer #1:

Abstract

1-PubMed is not a database; it is a search engine. You searched MEDLINE via PubMed.

** R. We corrected it.

2-Mention the used program for analysis

** R. We added it.

3-During reporting numbers with fractions or decimals, please use (.) not (,).

** R. We corrected it.

4-P-value here 48.5% (95%CI: 40.2-56.8; I2=97.94%; p<0.01) for heterogeneity or effect size?

**R. The P-value was for heterogeneity. We corrected that.

Introduction

5-Well-written with clear rationale and objectives.

**R. Thanks for your feedback.

Methods

6- "A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to assess the prevalence of DPN in patients with DM." Please remove this sentence as it was already mentioned in the objectives.

** R. We removed this sentence.

7- In your protocol, you proposed to identify the prevalence and incidence of "painful" DPN in Latin America, while in the manuscript you aimed to identify the prevalence and incidence of DPN in Latin America and the Caribbean. Please mention this deviation in your manuscript or update the protocol.

** R. We updated the Prospero protocol:

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148273

The outcome was modified by changing the painful neuropathy to peripheral neuropathy due to the little valid methods and high heterogeneity for its evaluation in the region. The population is better specified by adding the Caribbean region to Latin America. The inclusion criteria of the studies were specified according to the diagnostic methods of peripheral neuropathy. The analyzes to assess heterogeneity were better detailed.

8- The inclusion criteria of the population is not clear.

** R. We improved the redaction of the inclusion criteria section.

9- It's not clear to me why you excluded studies that reported some comorbidities such as diabetic foot?

** R. We excluded subsequent stages of diabetes mellitus such as diabetic foot or hospitalized for to reduce the selection bias of samples with expected high prevalence of DPN.

10- Databases were searched one year ago, I strongly recommend re-searching the databases for any potential studies.

** R. We updated the search on December 14th, 2020 for publication purposes. We found 164 papers and added 4 articles in the analysis. We modified all tables and figures accordingly.

11- Did you plan to include case reports and case series? If not, please specify.

**R. We did not plan to include them. This is described in the protocol and we added an exclusion criterion about it in the manuscript.

12- Two independent authors (MMY y MOF). You may mean (MMY and MOF).

** R. Corrected

13- Line 132: Data >> were not was

**R. Corrected.

14- Please recheck these percentages "quantified using I2 statistical test considering that an I2 < 40% is low, 30-60% is moderate, 50-90% is substantial, and 75-100% is considerable heterogeneity":

**R. Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked the Cochrane Handbook and it suggests these thresholds to interpretate heterogeneity. We choose threshold for considerable heterogeneity of 75% according to Higgins et al. Although there is not statement about these limits.

Reference: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm

15- Authors did not discussed who did they handle the duplicates and missing data.

Results

** R. We modified the paragraph in the methods section:

According to the inclusion criteria, two independent authors (MMY y MOF) selected articles by titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant articles. One of the authors (MMY) handled the duplicates. Lastly, the same authors accessed the full-text articles and evaluated their eligibility for inclusion. A third author (MYA) addressed the missing data and resolved inclusion discrepancies by discussion and consensus.

16- Line 213: There is no supplementary file 8, you may mean S2 Table?!

**R. Corrected

17- Line 248: It is 48.5% not 48,5%

**R. Corrected

18- Line 251: 11.9% not 11,9%. This should be addressed in the entire manuscript

**R. Corrected in all document

19- I could not find S6 Table??!

**R. The numeration of all tables was reviewed and corrected.

20- The quality of the figures should be enhanced

**R. We improved the quality of the figures.

21- Is there any explanation for this specific sample size (Sample size (>323) In the meta regression?

**R. We explained this in Risk Bias assessment section. : “adequate sample size > 323 subjects, considering the prevalence of DPN of 30% according to Sun et al. [27], 5% alpha, and 80% of power”.

We added this sentence in the table 4 and 5 as footnote.

Discussion

22- Unresolved heterogeneity should be reported in the limitations.

**R. We added in the limitation section the sentence between quotation marks:

The present study has some limitations. We only identified studies from five countries, of a total of 33 countries in LAC. Moreover, most of the data was based on a hospital population, with limited general population participation. Therefore, the external validity of our estimates has to be interpreted with caution. “Furthermore, although we have identified several sources of heterogeneity of the pooled estimates, a large unresolved heterogeneity was found”.

23- In the conclusion, you have to mention that this is a very low evidence.

** R. We added in the conclusion the words between quotation marks:

This study revealed that the overall prevalence of DPN was relatively high in LAC countries compared to other regions, as almost half of DM patients presented DPN, “although from very low evidence.”

General comment.

24- Please consider a language editing to eliminate any language mistakes

**R. The manuscript was reviewed by an English native speaker and we corrected all language mistakes.

**************************************************************************************

Reviewer #2:

This is an important contribution as it is a systematic review and metanalysis of the incidence and prevalence of DPN in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region with an explosion of diabetes and its complications and as highlighted a real lack of quality data on DPN.

The methods employed for the SR and MA are appropriate.

It highlights the high prevalence of this often neglected complication of diabetes and highlights the lack of rigorous population based studies to define the prevalence of DPN in LAC and the Caribbean.

It also reflects the limited published data from the region and the wide ranging prevalence (13-93%) due to differing populations studied, especially those from secondary care (n=19/25) and the different definitions utilized to diagnose DPN. Only one small study that assessed the incidence is noted. It confirms the poor methods used to identify DPN with most studies only being able to identify probable DPN as they rely on symptoms and clinical deficits.

The title should include the word Caribbean.

R. We added the word in the manuscript

What about painful DPN?

** R. Thank you for your feedback. The clinical manifestations of DPN were not prioritized outcomes in our predefined protocol, therefore, in this study, we focus only on the prevalence and incidence of DPN and their factors of heterogeneity. However, our research group is working in an in-depth review on the reported clinical profile of DPN in the region using a more appropriate methodological approach.

****************************************************************************************

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript is a systematic Review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence and incidence of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (PDN) in Latina America and the Caribbean (LAC). The Authors demonstrated that in LAC there is a high (49.5%) prevalence of PDN, a significant health issue. Furthermore, the Authors identify significant heterogeneity between and within country. The results are convincing and indicated several gaps, including under-representation and lack of incidence study and the need for standardized and population based DPN studies in LAC. The statistical analysis methods used are rigorous and appropriate.

Minor points:

1) The Authors could provide more evidence and details on why they included papers regarding studies diabetes type I or both diabetes type II and type I. Diabetes type I and II have different pathophysiology, age of onset etc. Hence it is important to justify their choice or remove these studies (in total 5, 3 type I and 2 both Type1 and 2) from the analysis. Furthermore, the numbers for diabetes type I are too to make any conclusion about the differences in prevalence between the 2 types.

**R. Thank you for your comments. We have clarified the justification for inclusion of T1DM and mixed population in our analysis. Please see the inclusion criteria section.

In the results section, as you suggested, we added, in the subgroup analysis, a statement about T1DM (between quotation marks):

The subgroup analysis for the type of DM showed no differences (heterogeneity test between-groups, p=0.53) among patients with type 1 DM (54.8%, 95% CI: 30.8 to 77.7) compared to type 2 DM (44.8%, 95% CI: 35.4 to 54.4), “however, this comparison is underpowered due to small number of studies including type 1 DM patients (n=3).”

In the discussion section, we already mentioned the explanation about T2DM an T1DM differences:

“Regarding the DM type, due to the small number of studies on type 1 DM and its wide confidence interval, it is not possible to establish differences in prevalence between both types. Nonetheless, in a recent meta-analysis by Sun et al., they found that patients with type 2 DM presented a higher DPN prevalence than those with type 1 DM [27]. This disparity may be explained by the differences in the pathophysiology of DPN between both types. In type 2 DM, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and systemic inflammation are significant factors for DPN, which can develop before diabetes onset and diagnosis [16]. In contrast, type 1 DM onset is mostly correlated with the presentation of symptoms, caused primarily by insulin deficiency and hyperglycemia, which is why a tight glucose control could reduce the risk of DPN in type 1 DM, but not in type 2 DM [81].”

Finally, we also added this paragraph in the discussion section about mixed diabetes studies:

“Since we decided to included studies with mixed populations (T1DM or/and T2DM) in our overall pooled estimates in order to increase generalizability and to reduce the impact of potential diagnosis overlap between T1DM and T2DM, we performed a sensitivity analysis to explore heterogeneity, that showed non-important impact of T1DM population into the regional pooled estimates (likely owing to the small number of included studies and sample size), contrary to previous studies showing less prevalence of DPN in T1DM (1). However, it is important to considering that current studies postulate that the diabetes mellitus classification is insufficient, and it has been suggested 5 phenotypes that would better explain the long-term results (2). Moreover, the Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults (LADA) could simulates T2DM onset and turns to a total insulinopenia in a short-term period (3), thus complicating the DM type differentiation. Additionally, the unavailability of laboratory tests for T1DM-specific antibodies in LAC countries could hamper the correct diagnosis (4). Therefore, it is important to increase the number and quality of the T1 DM diabetes registries in LAC, to estimate a precise DPN prevalence in this population.”

References:

1. Hicks CW, Selvin E. Epidemiology of Peripheral Neuropathy and Lower Extremity Disease in Diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2019;19(10):86. Published 2019 Aug 27. doi:10.1007/s11892-019-1212-8

2. Ahlqvist E, Storm P, Käräjämäki A, Martinell M, Dorkhan M, Carlsson A, et al. Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. The lancet Diabetes & endocrinology. 2018;6(5):361-9.

3. American Diabetes A. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(Supplement 1):S15-S33.

4. Vento S, Cainelli F. Autommune Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Neglected Issue in Global Health. Isr Med Assoc J. 2016 Jan;18(1):54-5. PMID: 26964282.

2) The Authors should better justify why they included additional records identified through other sources (Fig 1).

We changed in the search section:

Instead of this: “We conducted a hand search of grey literature and other related articles to retrieve additional relevant articles.”

Change for this: “As recommended by Cochrane collaboration, we included additional relevant articles from other sources via a hand search of grey literature and other related articles, due to low rate of database indexation of regional journal (1).”

Reference:

1. Rodrigues RS, Abadal E. Ibero‐American journals in Scopus and Web of Science. Learned publishing. 2014;27(1):56-62.

3) Given that neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy has a great impact on quality of life and health costs, it would be helpful if the Authors could analyze the data separately for painful vs non-painful diabetic neuropathy in this study or in future studies.

**R. Thank you for your feedback. The clinical manifestation of DPN was not prioritized outcomes in our predefined protocol, therefore, in this study, we focus only on the prevalence and incidence of DPN and their factors of heterogeneity. However, our research group is working in an in-depth review on the reported clinical profile of DPN in the region using a more appropriate methodological approach.

4) The Authors should consider adding Fig S1 as one of the main figures of the manuscript and not as supplemental figure. The map gives an immediate view of the countries in within LAC where studies were identified. As stated and discussed by the Authors studies were identified only in 5 countries of the 33 countries in LAC.

**R. Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the map as a main figure in manuscript.

30 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-28188R1

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yovera-Aldana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Negida, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved significantly; however, I have two minor comments that have not been addressed yet.

1- Line 121: add and between (MMY MOF)

2- Line 116: Not for "Publication purposes", it is to find any potentially eligible studies to be included.

3- Line 370: Correct this presentation to avoid any confusion: 46.5%(95%CI; 38.0 to 55.0, I2=98.2%; p<0.01)

4- Line 371: I2: Not calculated? Why? It can be calculated if you have two or more studies compared, to the best of my knowledge.

5- Line 381: 35.78% (95% CI: 27.86 to 44.55; I2), add the I2 and its p-value in a separate ()

6- Line 381: (p=0.000), correct this to be (p<0.001)

Reviewer #2: My comments have been addressed adequately.

This is an important contribution, not least because it highlights the lack of good prevalence studies from the region.

Reviewer #3: The Authors addressed adequately all the Reviewer's comments. All concerns were addressed in the edited version of manuscript

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rayaz Ahmed Malik

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Apr 2021

Response to reviewers

PONE-D-20-28188R2

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLOS ONE

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved significantly; however, I have two minor comments that have not been addressed yet.

1- Line 121: add and between (MMY MOF)

***R: Corrected

2- Line 116: Not for "Publication purposes", it is to find any potentially eligible studies to be included.

***R: Corrected.

3- Line 370: Correct this presentation to avoid any confusion: 46.5%(95%CI; 38.0 to 55.0, I2=98.2%; p<0.01)

*** R: Corrected : 46.5% (95%CI: 38.0 to 55.0; I2=98.2%, p<0.01)

4- Line 371: I2: Not calculated? Why? It can be calculated if you have two or more studies compared, to the best of my knowledge.

*** R: Thank for your comment. We agree with you that it is mathematically possible to calculate the I2 in meta-analysis of 2 or more included studies. However, we used the metaprop command in Stata (1), and the package developers only provide the I2 for meta-analysis of 4 or more studies. This is justified by previous studies suggesting a potential high bias of the I2 statistic in small meta-analyses (2), and due to this uncertainty, it is more accurate to assess the heterogeneity assessing visually the confidence interval overlaps (3). Therefore, we decided not to calculate the I2 in the analysis with less than 4 included studies. We have clarified this point in the method section as you suggested.

References:

1. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2014 Nov 10;72(1):39. doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39. PMID: 25810908; PMCID: PMC4373114.

2. von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:35. Published 2015 Apr 14. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0024-z

3. Ioannidis JPA, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007;335(7626):914–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80.

5- Line 381: 35.78% (95% CI: 27.86 to 44.55; I2), add the I2 and its p-value in a separate ()

*** R: We completed the data: 35.78% (95% CI: 27.86 to 44.55; I2 =99%, p<0.001 )

6- Line 381: (p=0.000), correct this to be (p<0.001)

*** R: Corrected : 30% (95% CI: 25 to 34; I2 = 99.5%, p<0.001)

Reviewer #2: My comments have been addressed adequately.

This is an important contribution, not least because it highlights the lack of good prevalence studies from the region.

Reviewer #3: The Authors addressed adequately all the Reviewer's comments. All concerns were addressed in the edited version of manuscript

30 Apr 2021

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PONE-D-20-28188R2

Dear Dr. Yovera-Aldana,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Negida, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

5 May 2021

PONE-D-20-28188R2

Prevalence and incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dear Dr. Yovera-Aldana:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Negida

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Characteristics of 28 included studies of diabetic peripheral neuropathy prevalence in Latin America and the Caribbean.

	Author (year)	Country	Design	Population, age (mean-years), male (%), diabetes time (median-years), A1c% (mean)	DM type	Primary outcome	Diagnostic criteria according to the study	Grouping criteria	Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group Criteria	Sample size (N)	Diabetic neuropathy cases (n)	Prevalence (%)	Quality assessment (total score)
1	Alvarez (2015) [51]	Cuba	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T1DM/	Diabetes complications	≥ 2/9 physical exam	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	224	135	63.70%	4
				Age: 51	T2DM
				Male n(%): 89 (39.7%)
				Diabetes time: 9.88
				A1c%: NR
2	Arellano (2018) [52]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: primary care	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	MNSI physical exam ≥ 2/10	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	106	86	81.1%	5
				Age: 59
				Male n(%): 63 (59.4)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
3	Barrile (2013) [53]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: primary care	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	TCNS + monofilament	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	68	39	57.3%	2
				Age:
				Male n(%): 26 (38.2)
				Diabetes time: 10.7 years
				A1c%: 7.7
4	Carbajal Ramirez (2019) [54]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	Sudomotor dysfunction	Autonomic sudomotor dysfunction	Confirmed/Sub clinic	221	134	60.6%	4
				Age: 59.8
				Male n(%): 73 (33.0)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
5	Cardoso (2018) [55]	Brazil	Cohort	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	NSS and NDS: moderate symptoms with/without signs or mild symptoms + moderate signs	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	668	196	29.2%	5
				Age: 60
				Male n(%): 262 (39.2)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: 7.7
6	Cardoso (2008) [56]	Brazil	Cohort	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	≥ 2/4: symptoms, monofilament, tuning-fork test, altered reflexes	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	471	68	14.4%	5
				Age: 60.5
				Male n(%): 250 (53.1)
				Diabetes time: 9.3
				A1c%: NR
7	Cardoso (2020) [57]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: Reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	LOPS: 10 g monofilament + least 1 altered (128 Hz tuning fork, pinprick sensa- tion and/or an ankle reflex)	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	85	50	58.8%	4
				Age: 59.6
				Male n(%): 30 (35.3)
				Daibetes time: 14.5
				A1c%:
8	Coutinho (2002) [58]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T1DM	Peripheral neuropathy	≥ 2/4: symptoms, signs, bio-thesiometer, nerve conduction test	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms + Nerve conduction test	Confirmed	28	8	28.0%	4
				Age: 13.0
				Male n(%): 18 (64.3)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
9	Damas (2017) [59]	Peru	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	Monofilament with or without tuning-fork test	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Possible	382	131	35.50%	7
				Age: 60.3
				Male n(%): 96 (25.1)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
10	De Matos (2020) [60]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: primary care	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	NSS and NDS: moderate symptoms with/without signs or mild symptoms + moderate signs	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	551	35	6.3%	5
				Age: NR
				Male n(%): 225 (44.8)
				Daibetes time: NR
				A1c%:
11	de Souza Lira (2005) [61]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	≥1/3: Achilles reflex, vibration 128 Hz tuning-fork test, monofilament.	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Possible	113	29	25.7%	7
				Age: 54.2
				Male n(%): 43 (38.1)
				Diabetes time: Debut
				A1c%: NR
12	Del Brutto (2016) [62]	Ecuador	Cross-sectional	Population: general population	T2DM	Diabetes complications	MNSI symptom >7, MNSI physic exam ≥ 2.5/10	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	110	65	59.0%	8
				Age: 64
				Male n(%): 51 (46.4)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
13	Di Lorenzo (2020) [63]	Uruguay	Cross-sectional	Population: Reference center	T1DM y T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	TSS and NDS: moderate/severe signs with/without symptoms or mild signs with symptoms	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	81	28	34.6%	4
				Age: NR
				Male n(%): 36 (44.4)
				Daibetes time: NR
				A1c%:
14	Dutra (2018) [64]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T1DM/ T2DM	Diabetes complications	Symptom Achilles reflex, vibration, temperature, pain perception	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	117	68	58.1%	4
				Age:50.8
				Male n(%): NR
				Diabetes time: 12.5
				A1c%: 8.25
15	Ferreira (2005) [65]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T1DM	Peripheral neuropathy	Nerve conduction test	Nerve conduction test	Confirmed/Sub clinic	48	29	60.4%	4
				Age: 12.9
				Male n(%): 28 (58.3)
				Diabetes time: 6
				A1c%: NR
16	Gerchman (2008) [66]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	2/4: symptoms, Achilles reflex, vibration 128 Hz tuning-fork test, monofilament.	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	1810	583	32.2%	7
				Age: 58.5
				Male n(%): 848 (46.9)
				Diabetes time: 11.9
				A1c%: 7.2
17	Gonzales Milan (2017) [67]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T1DM	Peripheral neuropathy	Score ≥1/40: Achilles reflex, ankle strength, vibration 128 Hz tuning-fork test, monofilament, in arms and legs	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	48	35	73.0%	4
				Age: 31.4
				Male n(%): 13 (27.1)
				Diabetes time: 12.5
				A1c%: NR
18	Ibarra (2012) [68]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: primary care.	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	MNSI physic exam ≥ 2/10	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	348	240	69.0%	8
				Age: 58
				Male n(%): 138 (39.7)
				Diabetes time: 9
				A1c%: NR
19	Lazo (2014) [69]	Peru	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	DNS + monofilament	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	129	73	56.6%	4
				Age: 59.2
				Male n(%): 56 (43.4)
				Diabetes time: 8.6
				A1c%: 8.7
20	Milan Guerrero (2012) [70]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	2 criteria: MNSI ≥2/10 y Nerve conduction test	Physical exam ≥ two signs + nerve conduction test	Confirmed/Sub clinic	150	131	87.3%	4
				Age: 56.9
				Male n(%): 45 (30.0)
				Diabetes time: 8
				A1c%: NR
21	Moreira (2009) [71]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: general population	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	NSS and NDS	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	214	39	19.1%	4
				Age: 56.2
				Male n(%): 68 (31.8)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
22	Moreira (2007) [72]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	NSS and NDS	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	65	22	33.8%	4
				Age: NR
				Male n(%): 12 (18.5)
				Diabetes time: 9.88
				A1c%: NR
23	Paisey (1984) [73]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	Signs with or without symptoms: Achilles reflex, vibration in ankle	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	503	205	40.8%	8
				Age: 52.2
				Male n(%): 199 (39.6)
				Diabetes time: 10.7
				A1c%: NR
24	Rivas (2016) [74]	Mexico	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	MNSI physic exam ≥ 2/10	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	198	130	65.70%	3
				Age: 56.4
				Male n(%): 59 (29.8)
				Diabetes time: 12.3
				A1c%: NR
25	Rodriguez (2018) [75]	Peru	Cross-sectional	Population: general population	T2DM	Diabetes complications	Monofilament with or without tuning-fork test	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Possible	301	40	13.30%	3
				Age: NR
				Male n(%): 122 (40.5)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: NR
26	Scheffel (2004) [76]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	Symptoms + 1/3 physical exam: Achilles reflex, vibration 128 Hz tuning-fork test, monofilament	Physical exam ≥ two signs + symptoms	Probable	698	251	36.0%	7
				Age: 59
				Male n(%): 390 (55.9)
				Diabetes time: NR
				A1c%: 6.8
27	Ticse (2013) [77]	Peru	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	Nerve conduction test	Nerve conduction test	Confirmed/Sub clinic	62	60	96.7%	6
				Age: 57.7
				Male n(%): 17 (27.4)
				Diabetes time: 7.8
				A1c%: 9.6
28	Tres (2007) [78]	Brazil	Cross-sectional	Population: reference center	T2DM	Peripheral neuropathy	≥ 3/6 physical exam: monofilament, tuning-fork test, temperature, Achilles reflex, muscular strength, pinprick test.	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	340	75	22.0%	5
				Age: 57.8
				Male n(%): 137 (40.3)
				Diabetes time: 8
				A1c%: 8.1

NR, Not reported; DM, Diabetes Mellitus; T1DM, Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; TCNS, Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score; MNSI, Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument; NSS, Neuropathy Symptoms Score; NDS, Neuropathy Disability Score; PCN, Partial Constriction Neuropathy; MDNS, Michigan Diabetic Neuropathy Score. NCT: Nerve Conduction Test.

Table 2

Characteristics of two included studies of diabetic peripheral neuropathy incidence in Latin-American and the Caribbean countries.

Author year	Country	Design	Type population, age (mean-years), male (%), diabetes time (media-years), A1c% (mean),	DM type	Main outcome	Basal diagnostic criteria	Follow-up diagnostic criteria.	Grouping criteria	Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group Criteria	Basal sample size (N)	Diabetic neuropathy cases (n)	Follow time months (median)	Incidence (%)	Quality assessment NCO (total score)
Cardoso (2008) [56]	Brazil	Cohort	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	≥ 2/4: symptoms, monofilament, tuning-fork test, altered reflexes	Development	Physical exam ≥ 2 signs + symptoms	Probable	403	48	57	11.9%	6
			Age: 60.5
			Male n(%): 250 (53.1)
			Diabetes time: 9.3
			A1c%: NR
Massardo (2019) [79]	Chile	Cohort	Population: reference center	T2DM	Diabetes complications	MNSI symptom >4/10, MNSI physic exam ≥ 2/10	Development	Physical exam ≥ two signs	Probable	32	17	119.3	54.8%	6
			Age: NR
			Male n(%): NR
			Diabetes time: NR
			A1c%: 8.7

T1DM, Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus; T2DM, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; MNSI, Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument

Table 3

Subgroup analysis of meta-analysis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy prevalence in Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

	N	Prevalence	95% CI	% weight	I2
Country
Cuba	1	60.26	53.53–66.72	3.64	.
Mexico	7	68.70	55.12–80.83	25.12	96.58
Brazil	14	33.13	24.87–40.82	49.83	96.97
Peru	4	51.60	21.52–81.06	14.35	98.76
Ecuador	1	59.09	49.31–68.37	3.56	.
Uruguay	1	34.57	24.34–45.96	3.50	98.24
Type of population
General population	3	28.64	8.75–54.25	10.84	.
Primary care	4	51.67	10.75–91.26	14.36	99.49
Reference center	21	48.15	40.02–56.32	74.79	97.45
Type of DM
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus	3	54.85	30.86–77.75	9.91	.
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus	23	44.87	35.48–54.44	79.39	98.51
Both	3	51.48	37.03–65.80	10.70	.
Age group
< 18 years old	2	48.53	37.19–59.94	6.54	.
≥18 years old	26	46.61	37.87–55.46	93.46	98.35
Time of DM
Debut of DM	1	25.66	17.91–34.73	3.56	.
>5 years of DM	6	44.99	21.87–69.287	21.14	99.15
> 10 years of DM	1	72.91	58.15–84.72	3.37	.
Any time of DM	20	46.74	37.24–56.36	71.93	97.85
Primary outcome
Diabetes neuropathy	17	51.91	35.83–67.80	67.80	97.00
DM complication	11	38.31	30.49–46.44	40.04	98.59
Type of diagnostic
Clinical signs	9	47.43	31.32–63.82	32.24	97.93
Clinical signs + symptoms	14	37.67	28.23–47.60	50.54	98.15
Clinical signs and NCT	1	28.57	13.22–48.66	3.17	.
Only NCT or SDT	4	78.80	57.83–94.03	14.05	95.53
Type of peripheral neuropathy according to Toronto criteria
Possible DPN	3	23.82	11.10–39.49	10.88	.
Probable DPN	20	44.25	35.20–53.49	71.90	98.18
Confirmed DPN	1	28.57	13.22–48.66	3.17	.
Subclinical +Confirmed DPN	4	78.80	57.83–94.03	14.05	95.53
Number of health centers
Single center	25	47.16	36.61–57.85	89.04	98.39
Multicenter	3	40.58	31.47–50.03	10.96	.

DM, Diabetes Mellitus; DPN, Diabetic Peripheric Neuropathy; NCT, Nerve Conduction Tests; SDT, Sudomotor Dysfunction Tests.

Table 4

Sensitivity analysis of meta-analysis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy prevalence in Latin American and the Caribbean countries.

	N	Prevalence	95% CI	% weight	I2
Type of sampling
Randomized	10	54.18	42.83–65.32	36.15	97.95
No randomized	18	42.10	30.03–54.67	63.85	98.27
Type of recollection
Retrospective	7	36.03	30.52–41.74	25.47	90.85
Prospective	21	50.09	36.92–63.24	74.53	98.62
Blind evaluation
No blind evaluation	11	42.18	29.82–55.05	39.70	98.47
Blind evaluation	17	49.37	37.37–61.40	60.30	98.05
Sample ≥ 323 subjects
No	19	54.84	42.49–66.90	66.87	97.22
Yes	9	30.33	20.52–41.13	33.13	98.61
Size sample according to precision
<165 (precision >7%)	14	59.44	46.78–71.50	48.70	94.87
165–322 (precision 5–7%)	5	42.50	19.97–66.81	18.18	98.62
323–800 (precision 3–5%)	8	30.10	18.07–43.70	29.41	98.77
>896 (precision <3%)	1	32.21	30.06–34.41	3.71	.
Quality clinic study
Very low (0–2)	2	44.84	36.88–52.94	6.97	.
Low (3–4)	14	47.86	30.80–65.17	49.48	98.59
Moderate (5–6)	5	49.64	26.09–73.28	18.02	98.88
High (7–8)	7	42.16	32.63–51.98	25.52	96.96

a Adequate sample size > 323 subjects, considering the prevalence of DPN of 30% according to Sun et al. [27], 5% alpha, and 80% of power.

Table 5

Meta-regression models of diabetic peripheral neuropathy prevalence in Latin-American and the Caribbean countries.

		Crude					Adjusted Model a
	n	Β	95% CI	P value	I2	Adjusted R2	β	95% CI	P value
Age (years)	23	-0.003	-0.01 to 0.0061	0.43	90.3	-0.88
Male (%)	24	-0.003	-0.01 to 0.05	0.46	90.4	-2.0
Diabetes time (years)	15	-0.007	-0.06 to 0.05	0.79	92.5	-7.43
A1c hemoglobin (%)	8	0.19	0.01 to 0.37	0.04	84.1	49.6
Year of publication	28	0.005	-0.006 to 0.17	0.36	91.53	-1.5
Quality score	28	0.007	-0.065 to 0.049	0.77	91.5	-4.5
Sample size (≥ 323) b	28	-0.22	-0.39 to -0.052	0.01	89.18	21.7	-0.19	-0.36 to -0.01	0.03
DPN as primary outcome	28	-0.12	-0.30 to 0.06	0.18	91.02	3.85	0.02	-0.15 to 0.19	0.78
DPN Toronto criteria	28				87.9	32.8
Possible		1					1
Probable		0.19	-0.05 to 0.45	0.13			0.21	-0.02 to 0.46	0.26
Confirmed		0.04	-0.55 to 0.63	0.88			-0.01	-0.59 to 0.58	0.97
Confirmed-subclinical		0.51	0.19 to 0.84	0.003			0.46	0.13 to 0.79	0.008

aAdjusted by sample size, Toronto Criteria and DPN as primary outcome. Adjusted R2 = 38.1; I2 = 88.4; p = 0.012.

b Adequate sample size > 323 subjects, considering the prevalence of DPN of 30% according to Sun et al. [27], 5% alpha, and 80% of power

Table 6

Quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE: Summary of findings.

Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)		№ of participants	The certainty of the evidence
	Frequency pooled (%)	CI 95%	(Studies)	(GRADE)
Prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in LAC	46.5	38.0 to 55.0	8139	⨁◯◯◯
			(28 studies)	VERY LOW a, b, c, d, e
Incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in LAC	13.7	10.6 to 17.2	503	⨁◯◯◯
			(2 studies)	VERY LOW f, g,h

CI, Confidence interval; LAC, Latin America and the Caribbean.

For prevalence

a The certainty rating started from low certainty since only three population-based studies were included

b High risk of bias (low and very low quality by Loney’s scale) was detected in most of the included studies (52%), due to the inadequate sample size, sampling, and evaluation.

c High inconsistency was detected in meta-analyses. The calculated I2 was >60%.

d Publication bias was detected in the meta-analysis by the funnel plot and Egger’s test.

e Not imprecision by adequate sample size and narrow confidence interval.

For incidence

f The certainty rating started from low certainty since only two population-based study was included.

g Risk of bias (moderate-quality by New Castle-Ottawa scale) was detected in both included study.

h We do not evaluate inconsistency, publication bias, or imprecision for this outcome.