Observational studyJournal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS2026
A New Simple SCreening Tool for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy (ACT) in Ecuador.
Observational study in Journal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic painful neuropathy is a cause of significant disability and sleep disturbance but may be undiagnosed in up to 80% of patients with diabetes. Various neuropathic pain (NP) questionnaires have good diagnostic utility but are impractical in resource-constrained and busy clinical settings. A simple sCreening Tool (ACT) was developed as a concise, patient-led tool to rapidly detect NP. This study evaluates the screening validity and psychometric properties of ACT compared with the DN4 questionnaire (reference standard).
methodsWe conducted an observational study employing clinic-based recruitment of patients with diabetes at a tertiary outpatient clinic in Guayaquil, Ecuador. All enrolled participants completed the ACT, DN4, and MNSI questionnaires during the study visit. MNSI was administered as part of the study to confirm the diagnosis of DPN using predefined cut-offs (MNSI-q ≥ 4 and MNSI-e ≥ 2.5). Time to completion, inter-item consistency, sensitivity, specificity, Youden's index, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated for ACT using DN4 ≥ 4 as the criterion for NP.
resultsOf the 300 participants (median age 63 years, diabetes duration 10 years), 65 (21.7%) had NP per DN4. Total ACTq+e (questionnaire+examination) yielded a cut-off score of ≥ 6 items as optimal, with area under the ROC curve 0.836, sensitivity 80.0% and specificity 75.7% for painful DPN. ACT demonstrated moderate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.65) and was well received by patients and clinicians on face validity. The completion time for ACT was comparable to that of DN4.
conclusionThe ACT tool is a rapid screening tool for identifying neuropathic pain in the busy clinic, with acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to DN4. The brevity and ease of patient self-administration of ACT make it promising for integration into busy outpatient workflows to improve the diagnosis of painful DPN.
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.