ReviewCureus2026
Therapeutic and Diagnostic Landscape of Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of the most prevalent complications of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to half of patients and contributing to disability, poor quality of life, and the risk of foot ulceration. Despite extensive research, its heterogeneous manifestations and complex pathophysiology continue to challenge timely diagnosis and effective treatment. This systematic review aimed to synthesize recent clinical evidence on diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for DN. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science identified 76 eligible clinical studies published between 2020 and 2025, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case reports. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Pharmacological agents, particularly pregabalin, duloxetine, and α-lipoic acid, demonstrated the most consistent efficacy, with significant pain reduction and improvements in nerve conduction velocity. Neuromodulation with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation provided sustained pain relief in refractory cases, while structured, exercise-based rehabilitation improved gait velocity and balance. Advanced wound care strategies, such as platelet-rich plasma dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes, accelerated ulcer healing. Complementary therapies (e.g., acupuncture and balneotherapy) and emerging biologics (e.g., gene- and cell-based interventions) showed preliminary promise but require further validation. Nerve conduction studies and validated scoring instruments remain the most reliable diagnostic tools, with biomarker- and microvascular-based measures emerging as valuable adjuncts. Current evidence underscores the value of integrating pharmacological, device-based, and rehabilitative strategies, while highlighting critical gaps in small-fiber and autonomic neuropathies. Robust, multicenter trials are needed to establish disease-modifying therapies and optimize comprehensive care pathways for DN.
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.