Does this patient with diabetes have large-fiber peripheral neuropathy?
Abstract
CONTEXT: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy predisposes patients to foot ulceration that heals poorly and too often leads to amputation. Large-fiber peripheral neuropathy (LFPN), one common form of diabetic neuropathy, when detected early prompts aggressive measures to prevent progression to foot ulceration and its associated morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to determine the clinical examination findings predictive of asymptomatic LFPN before foot ulceration develops. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: MEDLINE (January 1966-November 2009) and EMBASE (1980-2009 [week 50]) databases were searched for articles on bedside diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Included studies compared elements of history or physical examination with nerve conduction testing as the reference standard. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1388 articles, 9 on diagnostic accuracy and 3 on precision met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of diabetic LFPN ranged from 23% to 79%. A score greater than 4 on a symptom questionnaire developed by the Italian Society of Diabetology increases the likelihood of LFPN (likelihood ratio [LR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-5.6; negative LR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.38). The most useful examination findings were vibration perception with a 128-Hz tuning fork (LR range, 16-35) and pressure sensation with a 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (LR range, 11-16). Normal results on vibration testing (LR range, 0.33-0.51) or monofilament (LR range, 0.09-0.54) make LFPN less likely. Combinations of signs did not perform better than these 2 individual findings. CONCLUSIONS: Physical examination is most useful in evaluating for LFPN in patients with diabetes. Abnormal results on monofilament testing and vibratory perception (alone or in combination with the appearance of the feet, ulceration, and ankle reflexes) are the most helpful signs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the absence of this equipment, the Ipswich Touch Test is an acceptable alternative (likelihood ratio range, 10-15).
“In the absence of this equipment, the Ipswich Touch Test is an acceptable alternative that can be used to evaluate whether a patient can perceive light touch from an examiner's index finger applied to 6 or 8 prespecified sites on the feet (likelihood ratio range, 10-15).26”
From Diabetic Foot Ulcers (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 83
- Authors
- Kanji, J. N.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kanji, Jamil N.
- ORCID
- Kanji, Jamil N.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2010-04-21
- Volume
- 303
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1526
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1982647766
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
- Keywords
- diabetic peripheral neuropathy, foot ulcer, amputation prevention, bedside diagnosis, vibration perception, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, pressure sensation, physical examination findings, diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratios
- MeSH terms
- Diabetic Neuropathies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neurologic Examination, Physical Examination, Foot Ulcer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review