ArticleArchives of endocrinology and metabolism2025
Evaluation of sensory loss in the feet and associated factors in ambulatory patients with diabetes: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Archives of endocrinology and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on the "Evaluation of sensory loss in the feet and associated factors in ambulatory patients with diabetes: a cross-sectional study".Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of protective sensory loss in patients with diabetes mellitus at a university hospital and to identify clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with this condition.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted with diabetic patients attending specialized outpatient clinics. Data were collected through patient interviews and medical record reviews, in conjunction with using the monofilament test to assess protective sensory loss in the feet. Statistical analyses included descriptive and exploratory tests, as well as bivariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors associated with sensory loss (p < 0.05).
resultsA total of 184 patients were interviewed, but only 169 were included in the primary outcome analyses. The median age was 61 years, with the majority being female (72%), self-identifying as mixed-race (54%), and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (87%). The prevalence of protective sensory loss was 20%. Factors such as a longer duration of diabetes mellitus (95%CI 1.01-1.09; p = 0.022), the presence of target organ damage (95%CI 1.25-6.84; p = 0.015), and increased body weight (OR = 1.04; 95%CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.007) were significantly associated with sensory loss. Although systemic arterial hypertension was initially associated in the bivariate analysis, it did not remain an independent predictor.
conclusionThe significant prevalence of protective sensory loss and the lack of awareness about the monofilament test among many patients emphasize the need to expand neuropathy screening and health education in diabetes management.
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.