Screening for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Subjective Versus Objective Measures.

Stephanie Pleven, Nikolaos Papanas, Alfred Gatt, Cynthia Formosa
{"title":"Screening for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Subjective Versus Objective Measures.","authors":"Stephanie Pleven, Nikolaos Papanas, Alfred Gatt, Cynthia Formosa","doi":"10.1177/15347346241295461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study compared subjective screening modalities recommended in diabetic foot screening guidelines for the detection of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) with an objective measure, the NC-Stat DPNCheck<sup>®</sup>. We assessed 63 participants (mean age 54.5 years ± 10.5) utilising subjective screening tools (Semmes-Weinstein 10-g monofilament, 128-Hz traditional tuning fork, neurothesiometer, O'Brien 128-Hz electronic tuning fork) and compared results with the objective automated sural nerve conduction test NC-Stat DPNCheck<sup>®</sup>. A significant difference was found in the number of limbs classified with DPN between all screening tools (<i>P</i> < .05). Therefore, this suggests that some screening modalities are more sensitive in diagnosing DPN than others, highlighting the importance of using multiple screening tools to a comprehensive understanding of the patient's neurological status. The findings also emphasize the need to incorporate objective measures in diabetic foot screening and encourage future research to establish a gold standard tool for DPN diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241295461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study compared subjective screening modalities recommended in diabetic foot screening guidelines for the detection of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) with an objective measure, the NC-Stat DPNCheck®. We assessed 63 participants (mean age 54.5 years ± 10.5) utilising subjective screening tools (Semmes-Weinstein 10-g monofilament, 128-Hz traditional tuning fork, neurothesiometer, O'Brien 128-Hz electronic tuning fork) and compared results with the objective automated sural nerve conduction test NC-Stat DPNCheck®. A significant difference was found in the number of limbs classified with DPN between all screening tools (P < .05). Therefore, this suggests that some screening modalities are more sensitive in diagnosing DPN than others, highlighting the importance of using multiple screening tools to a comprehensive understanding of the patient's neurological status. The findings also emphasize the need to incorporate objective measures in diabetic foot screening and encourage future research to establish a gold standard tool for DPN diagnosis.

糖尿病周围神经病变筛查:主观测量与客观测量。
本研究将糖尿病足筛查指南中推荐的用于检测糖尿病周围神经病变(DPN)的主观筛查方法与客观测量方法 NC-Stat DPNCheck® 进行了比较。我们使用主观筛查工具(塞姆斯-韦恩斯坦 10 克单丝、128 赫兹传统音叉、神经电位计、奥布莱恩 128 赫兹电子音叉)对 63 名参与者(平均年龄为 54.5 岁 ± 10.5)进行了评估,并将结果与客观的自动硬膜神经传导测试 NC-Stat DPNCheck® 进行了比较。结果发现,所有筛查工具在归类为 DPN 的肢体数量上存在明显差异(P<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信