The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: We wanted to summarize evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament test in peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies in which the accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament was evaluated to detect peripheral neuropathy of any cause using nerve conduction as reference standard. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. RESULTS: We reviewed 173 titles and abstracts of articles to identify 54 potentially eligible studies, of which 3 were finally selected for data synthesis. All studies were limited to patients with diabetes mellitus and showed limitations according to the QUADAS tool. Sensitivity ranged from 41% to 93% and specificity ranged from 68% to 100%. Because of the heterogenous nature of the studies, a meta-analysis could not be accomplished. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the frequent use of monofilament testing, little can be said about the test accuracy for detecting neuropathy in feet without visible ulcers. Optimal test application and defining a threshold should have priority in evaluating monofilament testing, as this test is advocated in many clinical guidelines. Accordingly, we do not recommend the sole use of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009
American Diabetes Association (2009) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-s013 · Cited by 2,167
Dyck, P. J., Kratz, K. M., Karnes, J. L., Litchy, W. J., Klein, R., Pach, J. M., Wilson, D. M., O'Brien, P. C., & Melton, L. J. (1993) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.43.4.817 · Cited by 1,482
Cited by
Predictive factors for diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review
Monteiro‐Soares, M., Boyko, E. J., Ribeiro, J., Ribeiro, I., & Dinis‐Ribeiro, M. (2012) · Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews · doi:10.1002/dmrr.2319 · Cited by 322
Palladino, R., Tabak, A. G., Khunti, K., Valabhji, J., Majeed, A., Millett, C., & Vamos, E. P. (2020) · BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001061 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Dros, J., Wewerinke, A., Bindels, P. J., & van Weert, H. C.
- Venue
- The Annals of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- Annals of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2009-11-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 555-558
- ISSN
- 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-1717
- OpenAlex
- W2164262031
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.1016
- The paper
- Dros, J., Wewerinke, A., Bindels, P. J., & van Weert, H. C. (2009). Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1016
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.