Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37989346›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2023

Diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07 monofilament test for diabetes polyneuropathy: influence of age, sex, neuropathic pain and neuropathy severity.

Øystein Dunker, Martin Uglem, Marie Bu Kvaløy, Sissel Løseth, Ina Elen Hjelland, Sara Maria Allen, Maria Dehli Vigeland, Inge Petter Kleggetveit, Trond Sand, Kristian Bernhard Nilsen

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Is the 10 g monofilament fit for purpose for diagnosing DPN?BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2023
    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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Øystein DunkerDepartment of Research and Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway oeystein.dunker@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1280-7656
Martin UglemDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, Norway.
Marie Bu KvaløyDepartment of Neurology, Section of Clinical Neurophysiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Sissel LøsethDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Ina Elen HjellandDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Sara Maria AllenDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Maria Dehli VigelandDepartment of Research and Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Inge Petter KleggetveitDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Trond SandDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, Norway.
Kristian Bernhard NilsenDepartment of Research and Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NOStavanger University Hospital · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a need for simple and cheap diagnostic tools for diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07/10 g monofilament test in patients referred to polyneuropathy assessments, as well as to examine how disease severity, age, sex and neuropathic pain (NP) impact diagnostic accuracy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsFive Norwegian university hospitals recruited patients with diabetes aged 18-70 referred to neurological outpatient clinics for polyneuropathy assessments. The 5.07/10 g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination (SWME) was validated against the Toronto consensus for diagnosing diabetic neuropathies; the results were stratified by age, sex and NP. Disease severity was graded by a combined nerve conduction study (NCS) Z-score, and logistic regression was applied to assess whether disease severity was a predictor of diagnostic accuracy.

resultsIn total, 506 patients were included in the study. Global sensitivity was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55, 0.66), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.75, 0.87), positive and negative predictive values were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81, 0.90) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.46, 0.58), respectively, positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.28 (95% CI 2.37, 4.53) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.42, 0.57), respectively. The SWME was less sensitive in females (0.43), had lower specificity in patients with NP (0.56), and performed worse in patients ≥50 years. NCS-based disease severity did not affect diagnostic accuracy (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95, 1.40).

conclusionsThis multicenter study demonstrates poor diagnostic performance for the 5.07/10 g SWME in patients with diabetes referred to polyneuropathy assessments; it is particularly unsuited for female patients and those with NP. The diagnostic accuracy of the SWME was not influenced by NCS-based disease severity, demonstrating that it does not perform better in patients with later stages of DPN. We do not recommend the use of the 5.07/10 g monofilament in the evaluation of patients with diabetes referred to polyneuropathy assessments.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic NeuropathiesNeuralgiaPolyneuropathiesAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNerve Conduction StudiesPredictive Value of TestsYoung Adultdiabetic neuropathiesdiagnostic techniques and procedures

Identifiers

PMID37989346
PMCPMC10660161
OpenAlexW4388871638

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.