advertising
-
1
Cho N, Shaw J, Karuranga S, et al.: IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 138: 271, 2018.
-
2
Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA: Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N Engl J Med 376: 2367, 2017.
-
3
Bus SA, Armstrong DG, van Deursen RW, et al.: IWGDF guidance on footwear and offloading interventions to prevent and heal foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 32(suppl 1): 25, 2016.
-
4
Schechter MC, Fayfman M, Khan LSMF, et al.: Evaluation of a comprehensive diabetic foot ulcer care quality model. J Diabetes Complications 34: 107516, 2020.
-
5
van Netten J, Raspovic, Lavery L, et al.: Prevention of foot ulcers in the at-risk patient with diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36(suppl 1): e3270, 2020.
-
6
American Diabetes Association: Microvascular complications and foot care: standards of medical care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care 43(suppl 1): S135, 2020.
-
7
Young MJ, Boulton AJ, MacLeod AF, et al.: A multicenter study of the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the United Kingdom hospital clinic population. Diabetologia 36: 150, 1993.
-
8
Tesfaye S, Tesfaye S, Boulton A, et al.: Diabetic neuropathies: update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity, and treatments. Diabetes Care 33: 2285, 2010.
-
9
Rinkel W, Aziz M, Van Neck J, et al.: Development of grading scales of pedal sensory loss using Mokken scale analysis on the Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Study Test Battery data. Muscle Nerve 60: 520, 2019.
-
10
Gin H, Rigalleau V, Baillet L, et al.: Comparison between monofilament, tuning fork and vibration perception tests for screening patients at risk of foot complication. Diabetes Metab 28: 457, 2002.
-
11
Olaleye D, Perkins B, Bril V: Evaluation of three screening tests and a risk assessment model for diagnosing peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 54: 115, 2001.
-
12
Richard J, Reilhes L, Burvey S, et al.: Screening patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration: a comparison between measurement of vibration perception threshold and 10-g monofilament test. Int Wound J 11: 147, 2014.
-
13
Pham H, Armstrong D, Harvey C, et al.: Screening techniques to identify people at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Care 23: 606, 2000.
-
14
Oyer D, Saxon D, Shah A: Quantitative assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with the clanging tuning fork test. Endocr Pract 13: 5, 2007.
-
15
Botez S, Liu G, Logigian E, et al.: Is the bedside timed vibration test reliable? Muscle Nerve 39: 221, 2009.
-
16
Prabhakar A, Suresh T, Kurian D, et al.: Timed vibration sense and joint position sense testing in the diagnosis of distal sensory polyneuropathy. J Neurosci Rural Pract 10: 273, 2019.
-
17
O’Brien T, Karem J: An initial evaluation of a proof-of-concept 128-Hz electronic tuning fork in the detection of peripheral neuropathy. JAPMA 104: 134, 2014.
-
18
O’Brien T, Karem J: Relative sensory sparing in the diabetic foot implied through vibration testing. Diabet Foot Ankle Sept: 4, 2013.
-
19
Raymond B, Steriovski J, Gillyard K, et al.: Choosing a vibratory test to pair with Semmes Weinstein monofilament testing for evaluating lower extremity sensation in patients with diabetes: a comparison of three vibratory methodologies. J Diabetes Sci Technol 14: 8, 2020.
-
20
DeLong E, DeLong D, Clarke-Pearson D: Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837, 1988.
-
21
Dros J, Wewerinke A, Bindels PJ, et al.: Accuracy of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review. Ann Fam Med 7: 555, 2009.
-
22
Mcgill M, Molyneaux L, Spencer R, et al.: Possible sources of discrepancies in the use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament: impact on prevalence of insensate foot and workload requirements. Diabetes Care 22: 598, 1999.
-
23
Lavery L, Lavery D, Lavery D, et al.: Accuracy and durability of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: what is the useful service life? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 97: 399, 2012.
-
24
Haloua M, Sierevelt I, Theuvenet WJ: Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: influence of temperature, humidity, and age. J Hand Surg Am 36: 1191, 2011.
-
25
Chikai M, Ino S: Buckling force variability of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments in successive use determined by manual and automated operation. Sensors (Basel) 19: 803, 2019.
-
26
Moon K, Kim S, Han S: Risk factors for major amputation in hospitalized diabetic patients with forefoot ulcers. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 158: 107905, 2019.
-
27
Reiber G, Vileikyte L, Boyko E, et al.: Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care 22: 157, 1999.
-
28
Chen Y, Wang T, Liu X, et al.: Prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among US pediatric population in the MarketScan Multi-State Database, 2002 to 2016. Pediatr Diabetes 20: 523, 2019.
-
29
O’Brien T: Evidence-based assessment of pediatric diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Curr Res Diabetes Obes J 9: 555773, 2019.
-
30
Hasani N, Khosrawi S, Hashemipour M, et al.: Prevalence of related risk-factors of peripheral neuropathy in children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Res Med Sci 18: 132, 2013.
-
31
Hirschfeld G, von Glischinski M, Blankenburg M, et al.: Screening for peripheral neuropathies in children with diabetes: a systematic review. Pediatrics 133: e1324, 2014.
-
32
Crawford F, Inkster M, Kleijnen J, et al.: Predicting foot ulcers in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM 100: 65, 2007.
-
33
Conte M, Bradbury A, Kolh P, et al.: Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 58(1S): S1, 2019.
-
34
O'Brien TD: Impaired dermal microvascular reactivity and implications for diabetic wound formation and healing: an evidence review. J Wound Care 29(suppl 9): S21, 2020.
Combined Utility of the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament and the Timed Vibration Test in the Prediction of Diabetic Foot Ulcers
Penobscot Community Health Center, Bangor, ME.
Search for other papers by Todd O’Brien in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Joseph Karem in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Neurologic screening tests are often used to identify and stratify patients at risk for diabetic foot complications such as infections, ulcers, and amputations. Two of the most commonly cited methods are the 5.07 Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (SWM) for loss of protective sensation and vibratory sensation testing. The aim of this study was to determine whether combined SWM and the timed vibration test (TVT) more effectively predicts diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) development compared with each test alone.
Methods: An electronic medical record database search was performed restricted to podiatric medical clinic patients with diabetes and DFU ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Of 200 patients who met the criteria, 24 developed DFUs. A statistical analysis was performed comparing the SWM and TVT at various cutoff times and the combined SWM/TVT in their ability to predict DFUs.
Results: Statistical analysis revealed that the TVT cutoff time of less than 4 sec was superior to the other times for prediction of DFUs. The combined SWM/TVT results at less than 4 sec were superior to each test individually: sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 84.7%; positive predictive value, 43.8%; and receiver operating characteristics area under the curve, 0.86.
Conclusions: The SWM combined with TVT was shown to be superior compared with either test alone in discriminating DFU risk. In addition, the TVT cutoff time of less than 4 sec proved to have greater diagnostic yield than other times, including 0 sec. This unexpected finding might impact providers relying on the absence of vibration sensation via tuning fork testing as an optimal marker of DFU risk.
advertising
advertising
