scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Assessment Methods for Diagnosing Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: An Evidence Based Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. A857
Author(s):  
VM Gangavarapu
Pain Practice ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonya J. Snedecor ◽  
Lavanya Sudharshan ◽  
Joseph C. Cappelleri ◽  
Alesia Sadosky ◽  
Sonam Mehta ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e046966
Author(s):  
Nan Zhao ◽  
Jingcan Xu ◽  
Qiuhong Zhou ◽  
Xinyi Li ◽  
Jiarui Chen ◽  
...  

ObjectiveDiabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich Touch Test (IPTT) is a new method for screening for DPN and, compared with traditional methods, is more simple to operate and requires no equipment. However, the screening accuracy of IPTT in patients with DPN has not been well characterised. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT compared with traditional methods and to understand the potential screening value of IPTT.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to 16 April 2020.MethodsStata V.15.1 software was used for analysis, and the screening value of IPTT in DPN was described using 10 g monofilament (10g-MF), neuropathy disability scores (NDS), Pin prick, 128 Hz tuning fork, and ankle reflex as reference standards. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of IPTT for screening DPN were pooled based on a quality effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (42020168420).ResultsOf the 441 records retrieved, 7 studies were evaluated for the screening value of IPTT. Five studies with 10g-MF as the reference standard were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95%CI 0.69–0.84) and 0.96(95%CI 0.93–0.98), respectively, and the area under curve was 0.897. Compared with vibration perception threshold, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.76 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with NDS, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.53 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with Pin prick, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.8 and 0.88, respectively. Compared with 128 Hz tuning fork, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.4 and 0.27, respectively. Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97.ConclusionsIPTT shows a high degree of agreement with other commonly used screening tools for DPN screening. It can be used clinically, especially in remote areas and in primary medical institutions, and by self-monitoring patients. More high-quality studies are needed to assess and promote more effective screening practices.PROSPERO registration numberRegistration Number is CRD (42020168420).


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wondimeneh Shibabaw Shiferaw ◽  
Tadesse Yirga Akalu ◽  
Yeshamble Work ◽  
Yared Asmare Aynalem

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document