ArticlePloS one2024
The accuracy of 10 g monofilament use for clinical screening of diabetes peripheral neuropathy among Indian population.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and determinants of peripheral neuropathy among older Malaysians: Insights from a community-based cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- Clinical characteristics of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a retrospective descriptive study.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2026Article
- Article
- Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy, amputation, and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to test the diagnostic accuracy of the 10g monofilament to screen for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in India. The study further assessed the effect of physical activity, footwear use, and occupation on the outcome.
methodsNon-probabilistic purposive sampling was used to recruit patients with T2DM to assess the diagnostic utility of the 10 g monofilament. 160 participants were recruited divided into 4 groups. Each group consisted of 40 participants with 20 under each category described as "Physical Worker Vs Non- physical worker" (n = 40), "Barefoot Vs Footwear" (n = 40), "Use of Slipper at Home Vs No-slippers use at home" (n = 40), "Agriculture Vs Non- agriculture" (n = 40). 10 g monofilament was used to detect the presence of protective sensation towards screening of DPN against biothesiometer (Vibration Pressure Threshold).
resultsThe area under the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve was 0.6 for identifying DPN using the 10 g monofilament. Physical work (p = 0.04), footwear (p = 0.04), slipper use at home (p = 0.02) and occupation (p = 0.02) impacted on the diagnostic utility of the 10g monofilament.
conclusionsThis study shows that the 10 g monofilament has limited accuracy for detecting DPN in the Indian population and this is further affected by occupation, socioeconomic and religious practice.
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.