Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Variables influencing neuropathic endpoints: The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study of Healthy Subjects

Dyck, P. J., Litchy, W. J., Lehman, K. A., Hokanson, J. L., Low, P. A., O'Brien, P. C.·1995·Neurology

Abstract

Article abstract—We determined the normal limits for various neuropathic tests in healthy subjects. The study, the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study (RDNS), is noteworthy because of its size (more than 400 subjects), random selection of subjects, and selection of at least 15 men and 15 women without neuropathy, neurologic disease, or diseases predisposing to neuropathy from each hemidecade between 18 and 74 years of age from the population of a defined region (Rochester, MN). Subjects were classified into those with (nonhealthy subjects, RDNS-NS) and without (healthy subjects, RDNS-HS) neuropathy, neurologic or psychiatric disease, or diseases known to predispose to neuropathy. The study provides normal limits for tests used in the RDNS but it has broader uses as well. We found that (1) less than 10% of subjects in the third decade, approximately 20% in the fourth decade, and approximately 30% in the fifth or older decades were placed into the RDNS-NS category; (2) healthy subjects (RDNS-HS) retain their ability to walk on toes and heels regardless of age, excessive weight, or lack of physical fitness, but not their ability to arise from a kneeled position—lost in more than 5% of persons 60 years and older; (3) the frequency of decreased or absent ankle reflexes exceeds 5% in healthy subjects older than 50 years—limiting their value as a sign of diabetic polyneuropathy and necessitating a grading change with age in the neuropathy impairment score. We also found that (1) physical variables other than age influence neuropathic endpoints; (2) the variables are different among neuropathic endpoints; and (3) it is now possible to compute specific percentile values automatically for neuropathic endpoints for a given patient. We found that the improved estimates of normal limits sometimes provide a different estimate of normality from the one that was available from age consideration only. We suggest that the percentile approach considering physical variables influencing neuropathic endpoints might be adopted by clinical EMG, sensory, and autonomic laboratories. Continued use of normal limits tables, which are corrected only for age, provides quite inadequate reference values, especially for some attributes of nerve conduction and for the extremes of height and weight.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.45.6.1115

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Dyck, P. J., Litchy, W. J., Lehman, K. A., Hokanson, J. L., Low, P. A., & O'Brien, P. C.
Venue
Neurology
Published
1995-06
Volume
45
Issue
6
Pages
1115-1121
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2053508422
Cited by
274
References
0
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variables influencing neuropathic endpoints: The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study of Healthy Subjects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.45.6.1115
The paper
Dyck, P. J., Litchy, W. J., Lehman, K. A., Hokanson, J. L., Low, P. A., & O'Brien, P. C. (1995). Variables influencing neuropathic endpoints: The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study of Healthy Subjects. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.45.6.1115

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.