ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Classical Therapies Versus Combined Therapies in Diabetic Neuropathy.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to evaluate the classical therapies represented by adequate glycemic control and lifestyle changes versus classical therapies combined with new antioxidant therapies in patients with diabetic neuropathy. We conducted an observational, prospective study, between October 2017 and December 2019, which included a number of 188 patients suffering from diabetic neuropathy. In order to evaluate the response to the therapeutic protocol, we used the MNSI (Michigan neuropathy screening instrument). Responder group was defined as a decrease in MNSI (<7) from baseline to one year. According to this 34.04% (n=64) of patients were responders to classical therapy while a higher number of patients responded to combined therapy (n=73, representing 38.83%). In the group of responders, the subgroups that predicted the prevention of MNSI increase (decrease in the impact of diabetic neuropathy) in the group treated with combined therapy compared to classical therapy, related to clinicopathological features, after one year included: gender female (p=0.0415), body mass index <30kg/m2 (p=0.0335), absence of cardiovascular disease (p=0.0006) and absence of dyslipidemia (p=0.0288). In conclusion, we demonstrated an increased response to combined therapy after one year of treatment. Thus, combined therapy is an alternative for reducing side effects and for increasing efficiency.
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.