Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34952841›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2021

Reliability of recommended non-invasive chairside screening tests for diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Ally McIllhatton, Sean Lanting, David Lambkin, Lucy Leigh, Sarah Casey, Vivienne Chuter

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Current Perspectives in Pre- and Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy Diagnosis and Management: An Expert Statement for the Gulf Region.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ally McIllhattonDiscipline of Podiatry, The University of Newcastle Faculty of Health and Medicine, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia.
Sean LantingDiscipline of Podiatry, The University of Newcastle Faculty of Health and Medicine, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia sean.lanting@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5596-7778
David LambkinHunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5729-1927
Lucy LeighHunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5198-8843
Sarah CaseyDiscipline of Podiatry, The University of Newcastle Faculty of Health and Medicine, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4024-1012
Vivienne ChuterDiscipline of Podiatry, The University of Newcastle Faculty of Health and Medicine, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4793-5340
Hunter Water · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective is to determine, by systematic review, the reliability of testing methods for diagnosis of diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy (DPN) as recommended by the most recent guidelines from the International Diabetes Foundation, International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot and American Diabetes Association. Electronic searches of Cochrane Library, EBSCO Megafile Ultimate and EMBASE were performed to May 2021. Articles were included if they reported on the reliability of recommended chairside tests in diabetes cohorts. Quality appraisal was performed using a Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist and where possible, meta-analyses, with reliability reported as estimated Cohen's kappa (95% CI). Seventeen studies were eligible for inclusion. Pooled analysis found acceptable inter-rater reliability of vibration perception threshold (VPT) (κ=0.61 (0.50 to 0.73)) and ankle reflex testing (κ=0.60 (0.55 to 0.64)), but weak inter-rater reliability for pinprick (κ=0.45 (0.22 to 0.69)) and 128 Hz tuning fork (κ=0.42 (0.15 to 0.70)), though intra-rater reliability of the 128 Hz tuning fork was moderate (κ=0.54 (0.37 to 0.73)). Inter-rater reliability of the four-site monofilament was acceptable (κ=0.61 (0.45 to 0.77)). These results support the clinical use of VPT, ankle reflexes and four-site monofilament for screening and ongoing monitoring of DPN as recommended by the latest guidelines. The reliability of temperature perception, pinprick, proprioception, three-site monofilament and Ipswich touch test when performed in people with diabetes remains unclear.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootDiabetic NeuropathiesHumansMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsVibrationdiabetic footneuropathy

Identifiers

PMID34952841
PMCPMC8710873
OpenAlexW4200015343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.