ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Quantitative assessment of diabetic amyotrophy using magnetic resonance neurography-a case-control analysis.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Rare Atypical Presentation of Bruns-Garland Syndrome: A Case Report and Review of Pathophysiology and Management.Cureus · 2025Article
- Lumbosacral Radiculoplexus Neuropathy: Neurologic Outcomes and Survival in a Population-Based Study.Neurology · 2021Article
- Application of High-Resolution Ultrasound on Diagnosing Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2021Review
- Diabetic Amyotrophy (Bruns-Garland Syndrome): A Narrative Review.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantitatively characterize diabetic amyotrophy (DA), or diabetic lumbosacral radiculoplexopathy, and compare with controls using magnetic resonance neurography (MRN).
methodsForty controls and 23 DA cases were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of bilateral L3 through S2 lumbosacral nerve roots, femoral nerves, and sciatic nerves (proximal and distal measurements) were measured. A linear model was used to assess the nerve location and case/control effect on angle-corrected CSAs. Intra- and inter-reader analysis was performed using intraclass correlation (ICC).
resultsIn DA cases, abnormalities of the lumbosacral nerve roots, sciatic, femoral, and obturator nerves were seen in 21/23, 16/23, 21/23, and 9/23, respectively. Denervation abnormalities of multiple abdominopelvic muscles were seen. Quantitatively, the CSA of all measured LS plexus nerve roots and bilateral femoral nerves were significantly larger in DA cases vs. controls by 45% (95% CI, (30%, 49%); p < 0.001). The ICC was moderate for inter-rater analysis = 0.547 (95% CI, 0.456-0.626) and excellent for intra-rater analysis = 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-92).
conclusionsMultifocal neuromuscular lesions related to diabetic amyotrophy were qualitatively and quantitatively detected on MRN. Qualitative abnormalities distinguished cases from controls, and nerve CSAs of cases were significantly larger than those of controls. Therefore, MRN may be employed as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for the evaluation of diabetic amyotrophy. KEY POINTS: • Qualitative abnormalities of lumbosacral nerve roots, their peripheral branches, and muscles are seen in DA. • The lumbosacral nerve roots and their peripheral branches in diabetic amyotrophy cases are significantly larger in cross-sectional area than non-diabetic subjects by 45% (95 CI, 30%, 49%; p < 0.001). • The ICC was moderate for inter-rater analysis = 0.547 (95% CI, 0.456-0.626) and excellent for intra-rater analysis = 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-92).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.