Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: An Umbrella Review.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Journal of Diabetes Research Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/jdr/5902036
María Mogilevskaya, Mariana Gaviria-Carrillo, John Edwin Feliciano-Alfonso, Ana M Barragan, Carlos A Calderon-Ospina, Mauricio O Nava-Mesa
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: An Umbrella Review.","authors":"María Mogilevskaya, Mariana Gaviria-Carrillo, John Edwin Feliciano-Alfonso, Ana M Barragan, Carlos A Calderon-Ospina, Mauricio O Nava-Mesa","doi":"10.1155/jdr/5902036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peripheral neuropathy is a common cause of morbidity in diabetes. Despite recent advancements in early diagnosis methods, there is a need for practical, highly sensitive, and cost-effective screening methods in clinical practice. This study summarizes evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of validated screening methods for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality and bias using AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Seven reviews with 19,531 participants were included. The monofilament test showed inconsistent sensitivity (<i>S</i>: 0.53-0.93) and specificity (Sp: 0.64-1.00), along with high variability in its application. Neuropad exhibited high <i>S</i> (86%, 95% CI 79-91). However, variations in the interpretation of results across the included studies may have impacted its Sp (65%, 95% CI 51-76). The Ipswich touch test exhibited adequate diagnostic accuracy (<i>S</i>: 0.77, Sp: 0.96, DOR: 75.24) but lacked comparison with gold standard tests. In vibration perception studies, the biothesiometer outperformed the tuning fork (<i>S</i>: 0.61-0.80 vs. 0.10-0.46). In general, heterogeneity was observed due to varied reference tests, thresholds, and patient differences. The development of automated analysis methods, as well as determination of predictive value of the combination of screening tools, is needed for further studies. Based on the study results, we suggest that clinicians should select screening tools tailored to their patient population, clinical setting, and available resources, as no single test can be universally recommended for all clinical scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":15576,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Research","volume":"2024 ","pages":"5902036"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11634407/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/jdr/5902036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peripheral neuropathy is a common cause of morbidity in diabetes. Despite recent advancements in early diagnosis methods, there is a need for practical, highly sensitive, and cost-effective screening methods in clinical practice. This study summarizes evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of validated screening methods for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality and bias using AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Seven reviews with 19,531 participants were included. The monofilament test showed inconsistent sensitivity (S: 0.53-0.93) and specificity (Sp: 0.64-1.00), along with high variability in its application. Neuropad exhibited high S (86%, 95% CI 79-91). However, variations in the interpretation of results across the included studies may have impacted its Sp (65%, 95% CI 51-76). The Ipswich touch test exhibited adequate diagnostic accuracy (S: 0.77, Sp: 0.96, DOR: 75.24) but lacked comparison with gold standard tests. In vibration perception studies, the biothesiometer outperformed the tuning fork (S: 0.61-0.80 vs. 0.10-0.46). In general, heterogeneity was observed due to varied reference tests, thresholds, and patient differences. The development of automated analysis methods, as well as determination of predictive value of the combination of screening tools, is needed for further studies. Based on the study results, we suggest that clinicians should select screening tools tailored to their patient population, clinical setting, and available resources, as no single test can be universally recommended for all clinical scenarios.

糖尿病周围神经病变筛查试验的诊断准确性:综述。
周围神经病变是糖尿病发病的常见原因。尽管最近早期诊断方法取得了进展,但在临床实践中仍需要实用的、高灵敏度的和具有成本效益的筛查方法。本研究总结了系统综述和荟萃分析的证据,证实了糖尿病周围神经病变筛查方法的诊断准确性。两名独立审稿人使用AMSTAR和ROBIS工具评估方法学质量和偏倚。共纳入7篇综述,19531名参与者。单丝试验的敏感性(S: 0.53-0.93)和特异性(Sp: 0.64-1.00)不一致,应用上也有很大的可变性。Neuropad表现出高S (86%, 95% CI 79-91)。然而,在纳入的研究中对结果解释的差异可能影响了其Sp (65%, 95% CI 51-76)。Ipswich触摸试验具有足够的诊断准确性(S: 0.77, Sp: 0.96, DOR: 75.24),但缺乏与金标准试验的比较。在振动感知研究中,生物测量仪优于音叉(S: 0.61-0.80 vs. 0.10-0.46)。一般来说,由于不同的参考试验、阈值和患者差异,观察到异质性。自动化分析方法的发展,以及筛选工具组合的预测值的确定,都需要进一步的研究。基于研究结果,我们建议临床医生应选择适合其患者群体、临床环境和可用资源的筛查工具,因为没有单一的测试可以普遍推荐用于所有临床情况。
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
Journal of Diabetes Research
Journal of Diabetes Research ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
152
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Diabetes Research is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The journal welcomes submissions focusing on the epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, management, and prevention of diabetes, as well as associated complications, such as diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy.
×
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