Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 382

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Longitudinal assessment of diabetic polyneuropathy using a composite score in the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study cohort

Dyck, Peter James, Davies, Jenny L., Litchy, W. J., O'Brien, P. C.·1997·Neurology

Abstract

Because there are little satisfactory data on change in severity of diabetic polyneuropathy (DP) over time from study of population-based cohorts of diabetic patients in epidemiologic surveys of DP, it is difficult to predict outcome or morbidity or to identify risk factors; it is also difficult to estimate statistical power for use in controlled clinical trials. In this longitudinal study of almost 200 patients from the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study (RDNS) cohort, we assess which symptoms, clinical examinations, tests, or combinations of examinations and tests (composite scores) are best used as minimal criteria for the diagnosis of DP and as a quantitative measure of severity of DP. An abnormality (> or = 97.5th percentile) of a composite score that included the Neuropathy Impairment Score of the lower limbs plus seven tests (NIS(LL)+7 tests), was a better minimal criteria for DP than clinical judgment alone or previously published minimal criteria. First, it provided a more comprehensive assessment of neuropathic impairment. Second, it avoided the overestimated frequency of DP when the minimal criteria for DP was any one or two abnormalities from multiple measurements. Minimal criteria using nerve conduction and reduced heart beat response to deep breathing identified approximately twice as many patients with DP than did clinical examination and vibration detection threshold using CASE IV. This difference could be used to subclassify state 1 DP. Although various individual measures of DP, for example, vibration detection threshold (as evaluated by CASE IV and the 4, 2, and 1 stepping algorithm [see text]), were good measures of worsening, the composite score NIS(LL)+7 tests (assessing neuropathic impairment) was much better at showing monotone worsening. Using this composite score, the average diabetic patient in the RDNS worsened by 0.34 points per year, whereas patients with diabetic polyneuropathy worsened by 0.85 points per year. On the assumption that a therapeutic agent may prevent worsening of DP but not cause improvement, controlled clinical trials of patients with DP would need to be conducted for a period of 3 years to achieve a meaningful change of 2 NIS points (the level of abnormality considered by a Peripheral Nerve Society consensus group to be clinically meaningful).

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.49.1.229

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 382

Metadata

Authors
Dyck, P. J., Davies, J. L., Litchy, W. J., & O'Brien, P. C.
Venue
Neurology
Published
1997-07
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
229-239
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2053096937
Cited by
382
References
2
FWCI
6.09
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: Longitudinal assessment of diabetic polyneuropathy using a composite score in the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.49.1.229
The paper
Dyck, P. J., Davies, J. L., Litchy, W. J., & O'Brien, P. C. (1997). Longitudinal assessment of diabetic polyneuropathy using a composite score in the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study cohort. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.49.1.229

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.