Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33303857›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2020

Performance analysis of noninvasive electrophysiological methods for the assessment of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical research: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Fahmida Haque, Mamun Bin Ibne Reaz, Sawal Hamid Md Ali, Norhana Arsad, Muhammad Enamul Hoque Chowdhury

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fahmida HaqueDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Mamun Bin Ibne ReazDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. mamun@ukm.edu.my.
Sawal Hamid Md AliDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Norhana ArsadDepartment of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Muhammad Enamul Hoque ChowdhuryDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Qatar University, 2713, Doha, Qatar. mchowdhury@qu.edu.qa.
National University of Malaysia · MYQatar University · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the availability of various clinical trials that used different diagnostic methods to identify diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN), no reliable studies that prove the associations among diagnostic parameters from two different methods are available. Statistically significant diagnostic parameters from various methods can help determine if two different methods can be incorporated together for diagnosing DSPN. In this study, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed to determine the associations among the different parameters from the most commonly used electrophysiological screening methods in clinical research for DSPN, namely, nerve conduction study (NCS), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), and electromyography (EMG), for different experimental groups. Electronic databases (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar) were searched systematically for articles reporting different screening tools for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A total of 22 studies involving 2394 participants (801 patients with DSPN, 702 controls, and 891 non-DSPN patients) were reviewed systematically. Meta-analysis was performed to determine statistical significance of difference among four NCS parameters, i.e., peroneal motor nerve conduction velocity, peroneal motor nerve amplitude, sural sensory nerve conduction velocity, and sural sensory nerve amplitude (all p < 0.001); among three CCM parameters, including nerve fiber density, nerve branch density, and nerve fiber length (all p < 0.001); and among four EMG parameters, namely, time to peak occurrence (from 0 to 100% of the stance phase) of four lower limb muscles, including the vastus lateralis (p < 0.001), tibialis anterior (p = 0.63), lateral gastrocnemius (p = 0.01), and gastrocnemius medialis (p = 0.004), and the vibration perception threshold (p < 0.001). Moreover, TSA was conducted to estimate the robustness of the meta-analysis. Most of the parameters showed statistical significance between each other, whereas some were statistically nonsignificant. This meta-analysis and TSA concluded that studies including NCS and CCM parameters were conclusive and robust. However, the included studies on EMG were inconclusive, and additional clinical trials are required.

Indexed as

Neural ConductionAdultAgedDiabetic NeuropathiesElectromyographyElectrophysiologyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeroneal NerveSural Nerve

Identifiers

PMID33303857
PMCPMC7730399
OpenAlexW3110962044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.