SynthesisBMJ open2021
Application of the Ipswich Touch Test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- 12. Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Foot Care: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Guidelines on primary healthcare for type 2 diabetes in China, 2025.Family medicine and community health · 2025Review
- Screening tools for diabetic foot ulcers: a narrative review.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a brief diabetic foot risk screening scale for diabetic patients.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: An Umbrella Review.Journal of diabetes research · 2024Review
- Article
- Screening for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in resource-limited settings.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2023Review
- Screening behaviors for diabetic foot risk and their influencing factors among general practitioners: a cross-sectional study in Changsha, China.BMC primary care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 SOURCES: PubMed, 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 NUMBER: Registration Number is CRD (42020168420).
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.